Daw Mang Cingh Huai v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1761
DAW MANG CINGH HUAI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 14, 2009 Decided: August 20, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daw Mang Cingh Huai, Petitioner Pro Se. Gregory G. Katsas,
Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant
Director, Marshall Tamor Golding, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daw Mang Cingh Huai, a native and citizen of Burma,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s
denial of her applications for relief from removal.
Huai first challenges the determination that she
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 Huai fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result.
Having failed to qualify for asylum, Huai cannot meet
the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v.
INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,
480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below
that Huai failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
that she would be tortured if removed to Burma. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2009).
We therefore deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3