Chuan Peng Cai v. Gonzales , 126 F. App'x 641 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2092
CHUAN PENG CAI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-353-883)
Submitted: April 8, 2005 Decided: April 29, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yueh-Mei Wu Rowan, ROWAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jennifer L. Scheller,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Chuan Peng Cai (“Cai”), a native and citizen of China,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board)
order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.*
We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so
compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483-84 (1992)). We have reviewed the evidence of record, the
immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order and find
substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Cai failed to
establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future
persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on
the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. at 483 (same). Moreover, because Cai cannot sustain his
burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to
withholding of removal. 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
*
Cai does not seek review of that part of the order that
denied protection under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore,
he has abandoned any such claim. See United States v. Al-Hamdi,
356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
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).”).
Accordingly, we deny Cai’s petition for review. 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 -