UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1805
TIANCI CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-908-112)
Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: July 12, 2005
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ning Ye, HEMENWAY & ASSOCIATES, Flushing, New York, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Mark W. Pletcher, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tianci Chen, 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 his application for asylum.
Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined process,
the immigration judge’s decision is the final agency determination.
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004). We will
reverse this decision 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)). We
have reviewed the administrative record and the immigration judge’s
decision and find substantial evidence supports the conclusion that
Chen 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).
Accordingly, we deny Chen’s petition for review. We
grant the Government’s motion to strike the portions of the joint
appendix that are not part of the administrative record, and the
portions of Chen’s brief that reference these documents. See
generally Fed. R. App. P. 10(a). We also grant the Government’s
- 2 -
motion to supplement the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2); 4th
Cir. R. 10(e). 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 -