Hui Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1433
HUI CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 13, 2011 Decided: January 6, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New
Jersey, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
Alison M. Igoe, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward J. Duffy,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hui Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his requests for asylum and
withholding of removal and denying his motion to remand.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of
fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the
[Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality
Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,
517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse
the Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at
483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an alien is not
eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to
the law and an abuse of discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592
2
F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)
(2006)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Chen failed to meet his burden of establishing a well-founded
fear of persecution based on the birth of his United States
citizen children. We therefore uphold the denial of Chen’s
requests for asylum and withholding of removal and deny this
portion of the petition for review. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). (“Because the burden of proof for
withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though
the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).
We have also reviewed the denial of Chen’s motion to
remand and find no abuse of discretion. See Onyeme v. INS, 146
F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of
review). We therefore deny this portion of Chen’s petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Chen
(B.I.A. Apr. 1, 2011). We 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