UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1371
YAN CHAO ZHENG,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-121-421)
Submitted: February 13, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy
Director, John Andre, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yan Chao Zheng, 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, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
On appeal, Zheng raises challenges to the immigration
judge’s determination that she failed to establish her eligibility
for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying
eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Zheng fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant
the relief that Zheng seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Zheng’s applications for withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for withholding
of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of
persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987).
To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant
must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she
- 2 -
would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Based on our review of the
record, we find that Zheng has failed to meet either one of these
standards.
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 -