Muai Ken Huang v. Gonzales , 157 F. App'x 608 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1036
MUAI KEN HUANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-1037
Z.H.,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-619-013; A77-353-587)
Submitted: October 26, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New York, for Petitioners. Frank D.
Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, David J. Cortes,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Muai Ken
Huang (“Huang”) and her minor son, Z.H. (collectively
“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of
China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s
orders affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial
of their requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Huang is the
primary applicant for asylum; the claims of her son are derivative
of her application. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(3) (West Supp. 2005);
8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2005).
In their petitions for review, the Petitioners challenge
the immigration judge’s determination that they failed to establish
eligibility for asylum. 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 Petitioners
fail to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that the Petitioners seek.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
the Petitioners’ request for withholding of removal. “Because the
burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for
- 3 -
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).”
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because the
Petitioners fail to show that they are eligible for asylum, they
cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s finding that the Petitioners fail to meet the
standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To
obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more
likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the
proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We
find that the Petitioners failed to make the requisite showing
before the immigration court.
Finally, Huang claims that the immigration judge deprived
her of the right to have her husband testify, thereby violating her
right to due process. Our review of the record reveals that Huang
declined the immigration judge’s offer to continue the case in
order to present her husband’s testimony. Under these
circumstances, we cannot conclude that Huang was denied due process
of law.
Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 4 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 5 -