Chai Cheung v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2037
CHAI BANG CHEUNG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 19, 2013 Decided: April 18, 2013
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F.
Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Richard M.
Evans, Assistant Director, Nancy E. Friedman, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chai Bang Cheung, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal of the
Immigration Judge’s decision denying relief from removal.
Cheung first disputes the finding that he failed to qualify for
asylum, contending that he demonstrated past persecution and
asserting that the Board erred in concluding that he failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of forced sterilization or an
excessive fine if he returns to China with his three United
States citizen children.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative
findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled
to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).
Legal issues are reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate
deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the INA and any
attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685,
691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the Board only
if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
2
persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v.
INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Cheung failed to meet his burden of establishing a well-founded
fear of persecution. We therefore uphold the denial of Cheung’s
requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See Camera 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).”).
Finally, Cheung challenges the denial of his
application for protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). To qualify for this relief, a petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating 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) (2012). We have reviewed
the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence
supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4