Yan Lin v. Mukasey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1728
YAN LIN,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-595-532)
Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Zhang, ZHANG & ASSOCIATES, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C.
Walters, Assistant Director, Jeffrey R. Meyer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yan 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”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her
requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture.* Lin challenges the Board’s
finding that her testimony was not credible and that she otherwise
failed to meet her burden of proof to qualify for asylum. We will
uphold a negative credibility determination if it is supported by
substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538
(4th Cir. 2006), and reverse the Board’s 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 quotations and
citations omitted).
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 Lin failed to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See
8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(I), (ii) (West 2005) (providing that the
*
Lin does not challenge on appeal the denial of protection
under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore find that she
has waived appellate review of this claim. See Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for
asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (same). Similarly, because
Lin does not qualify for asylum, she is not entitled to withholding
of removal. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir.
2007).
Accordingly, we 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 -