Ming Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1173
MING ZHONG LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 19, 2011 Decided: September 29, 2011
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Briana F. Isiminger, LAW OFFICES OF YU & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, New
York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant United
States Attorney, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Robbin K. Blaya, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ming Zhong Lin, a native and citizen of China,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his
applications for relief from removal.
Lin challenges the determination that he failed to
establish eligibility for asylum. He first disputes the
agency’s adverse credibility determination. To obtain reversal
of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien
“must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that
no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear
of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84
(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial
evidence. Lin thus fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Additionally, we uphold the agency’s finding
that Lin could not in any event demonstrate past persecution
based on his wife’s forced sterilization, or based on “other
resistance” to China’s coercive population control policy. See
Ni v. Holder, 613 F.3d 415, 425 (4th Cir. 2010); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42) (2006). Having failed to qualify for asylum, Lin
cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).
2
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny
Lin’s motion for a stay of removal and dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3