Qiang Jiang v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2335
QIANG JIANG,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent – Appellee.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 20, 2009 Decided: August 19, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, CHHETRY & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Aimee
J. Frederickson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Qiang Jiang, 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 decision denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the
Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a) (2006). It defines a refugee as a person unwilling or
unable to return to his native country “because of persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006).
“Persecution involves the infliction or threat of death,
torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one
of the enumerated grounds . . . .” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d
171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486
(4th Cir. 2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2009), and can
establish refugee status based on past persecution in his native
country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. §
2
1208.13(b)(1). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a
protected ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187
(4th Cir. 2004). Credibility findings are reviewed for
substantial evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an
applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds must offer
specific, cogent reasons for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d
76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). “Examples of specific and cogent
reasons include inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence,
and inherently improbable testimony.” Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446
F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is conclusive 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 are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2006). 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 persecution.” Rusu v. INS,
296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
3
We find that substantial evidence supports the Board
and the immigration judge’s findings. The record does not
compel a different result. We find further there was no
significant evidence supporting Jiang’s contention that he would
be tortured were he to return to China.
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
4