Jin Qing Wang v. Mukasey , 259 F. App'x 588 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1082
JIN QING WANG,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-911-532)
Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: December 26, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kathryn L. Moore, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jin Qing Wang, 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.* Wang 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 decision 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 ruling that Wang failed to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
*
Wang does not challenge the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture, and therefore, this claim is abandoned.
See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)
(holding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief
results in abandonment of that challenge).
- 2 -
persecution on a protected ground, 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, because Wang cannot sustain his burden on the
asylum claim, he cannot establish 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)].”).
Accordingly, we deny Wang’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 -