UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1048
JIAN GUANG TENG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-855-382)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: November 29, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Daniel E. Goldman, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jian Guang Teng, 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 the immigration judge's order
denying his requests for asylum,* withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In his
petition for review, Teng contends that the Board and the
immigration judge erred in denying his applications for withholding
of removal and protection under the CAT.
“To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must
show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of
his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13
(4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)).
To qualify for protection under the CAT, a petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that he or
she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005).
Based on our review of the record, we find that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that Teng has
failed to meet these standards. Accordingly, we deny the petition
for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
*
Teng does not challenge the Board’s denial of his asylum
claim as untimely.
- 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -