UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2060
JING PING LIN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-994-592)
Submitted: April 20, 2005 Decided: May 18, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yee Ling Poon, Jay Ho Lee, LAW OFFICES OF YEE LING POON, New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Blair O’Connor, Senior Litigation Counsel, Teresa A.
Wallbaum, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jing Ping Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (Board) order denying him asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.*
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 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483-84 (1992)). Credibility determinations of the immigration
judge (IJ) and Board are entitled to deference as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence. See Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d
76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). We have reviewed the evidence of record,
the immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order, and we
conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the IJ’s finding that Lin’s testimony was not credible. We
further find substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Lin
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) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof
is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483 (same).
*
Lin does not seek review of that part of the order that
denied withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny Lin’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 -