UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1663
XIE LEI CHENG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-683-108)
Submitted: December 14, 2005 Decided: January 5, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Kristine L. Sendek-Smith,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Xie Lei Cheng, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Cheng challenges the
determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for
asylum. 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 Cheng fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he
seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Cheng’s request for
withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for
withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the
facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of
removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Cheng fails to show that he
- 2 -
is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Cheng fails to meet the standard for relief under the
Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant
must establish 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). We find that Cheng failed to make
the requisite showing before the immigration court.
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 -