Cheng Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2276
CHENG BO LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 18, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Song Park,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Surell Brady, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Cheng Bo Lin, 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 from the
Immigration Judge’s order denying his applications for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT).
Lin first disputes the conclusion that he failed to
qualify for the relief of withholding of removal. “Withholding
of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) if the alien
shows that it is more likely than not that her life or freedom
would be threatened in the country of removal because of her
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353,
359 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) (2006). We have reviewed the administrative record
and conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s
adverse credibility determination as well as its finding that
Lin failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future
persecution. Because the evidence does not compel us to
conclude to the contrary, we uphold the denial of relief. See
Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011), cert.
denied, 133 S. Ct. 788 (2012). Finally, we uphold the finding
below that Lin failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than
2
not that he would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2013).
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3