Jiahui He v. Gonzales , 194 F. App'x 110 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2336
JIAHUI HE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-072-532)
Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: August 16, 2006
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jiahui He, Petitioner Pro Se. Michele Yvette Francis Sarko, Carol
Federighi, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jiahui He (“the Petitioner”), a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
In his petition for review, the Petitioner challenges the
determination that he failed to establish his 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 Petitioner fails to show that the evidence
compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief
that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of the Petitioner’s
request for withholding of removal. “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).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because the Petitioner fails to
- 2 -
show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that the Petitioner failed 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) (2006). We find that the
Petitioner failed to make the requisite showing before the
immigration court.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and deny the 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 -