UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1796
YASHENG LU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-601-921)
Submitted: December 14, 2005 Decided: January 18, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur J. Liu, INTER-PACIFIC LAW GROUP, INC., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, Fred
B. Westfall, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yasheng Lu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) order affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny
his applications for asylum, withholding from removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the
petition for review.
The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum
on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). It defines a refugee
as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native country
“because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)
(2000).
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating his
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2005); Gonahasa v.
INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). Credibility findings,
relevant to the subjective component, are reviewed for substantial
evidence. 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). We accord
broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings
supported by substantial evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
- 2 -
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum is
conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We will reverse the
Board “only if ‘the evidence presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999 (internal quotation marks
omitted)). We find the immigration judge’s negative credibility
finding was supported by substantial evidence. We further find the
evidence was not so compelling as to warrant reversal.
With respect to Lu’s due process challenge and his
challenges to the denial of withholding from removal and
withholding under the Convention Against Torture, because Lu failed
to exhaust these issues on appeal to the Board, we decline to
review the issues. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125
S. Ct. 861 (2005); Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir.
1990).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 4 -