UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2451
ZHENG FANG WENG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-170-454)
Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: March 25, 2005
Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zheng Fang Weng, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Song E.
Park, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Zheng Fang Weng, a native and citizen of China, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of
his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence 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 Weng fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Weng cannot
meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal.
Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).
We also uphold the IJ’s finding that Weng failed to
establish eligibility for protection under the Convention Against
Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). Finally, we reject
Weng’s claim that he was not accorded due process in that he was
not provided sufficient opportunity to explain his inconsistent
asylum applications, as this claim is belied by the record.
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 -