UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1686
YUN-GUAN ZENG,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-545-043)
Submitted: April 19, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yueh-Mei Wu Rowan, ROWAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V.
Bernal, Assistant Director, Regina Byrd, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yun-Guan Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order
affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s oral decision
denying Zeng’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed
the administrative record and the immigration judge’s decision,
designated by the Board as the final agency determination, and find
that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s
conclusion that Zeng failed to establish the past persecution or
well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating
that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility
for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)
(same). We will reverse the Board 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) (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84).
We do not find the record so compelling so as to reverse the Board.
In addition, we find no error in the Board’s decision to
affirm without opinion the immigration judge’s oral decision. See
Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, __ F.3d __, 2004 WL 603501 (4th
Cir. Mar. 29, 2004).
- 2 -
We deny Zeng’s 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 -