UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1958
LI QIN WANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-944-533)
Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: January 12, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard T. Mei, LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD T. MEI, Bethesda, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Robert M. Loeb, Scott A. Hershovitz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Li Qin Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the ruling
of the immigration judge finding Wang removable and denying her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for
review.
We will reverse a determination denying eligibility for
asylum “only if the evidence presented 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)
(internal quotations omitted). A trier of fact who rejects an
applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds must offer specific,
cogent reasons for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th
Cir. 1989). The record reflects that the immigration judge did so
in this case. We have reviewed the evidence of record and find
that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s
conclusion that Wang failed to establish either past persecution or
a well-founded fear of future persecution. Accordingly, we uphold
the immigration judge’s denial of asylum relief, as affirmed by the
Board.
As Wang failed to sustain her burden on the asylum
claim, she cannot establish her entitlement to withholding of
- 2 -
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).
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s finding that Wang 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). Wang failed
to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.
Therefore, 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 -