Chen v. Mukasey , 257 F. App'x 649 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1213
CHONG LANG YERU CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-746-852)
Submitted: September 21, 2007 Decided: December 7, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Mona Maria Yousif, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Chong Lang Yeru 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) affirming the immigration
judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Chen challenges the immigration judge’s finding that his
testimony was not credible and that he otherwise failed to meet his
burden of proving eligibility for asylum. We will reverse this
finding 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) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted), and we uphold credibility
determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence.
Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
Board’s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility finding and the determination that Chen failed
to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating that the burden of proof is
on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Moreover, as Chen
cannot sustain his burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish
- 2 -
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 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) [(2000)].”). In addition, we
uphold the finding that Chen failed to establish that it was more
likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to China. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2007).
Accordingly, we deny Chen’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 -