UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2067
XIU QIN SU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-117-039)
Submitted: March 13, 2006 Decided: April 19, 2006
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stuart Altman, LAW OFFICE OF STUART ALTMAN, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Xiu Qin Su, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
order affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s decision
denying asylum.* We deny the petition for review.
The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive
“unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We have reviewed the immigration
judge’s decision and the administrative record and find the record
supports the conclusion that Su failed to establish past
persecution or a well founded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on the
alien to establish his eligibility for asylum); INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). The record does not
compel a different result.
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
*
Su has waived any challenge to the denial of withholding from
removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture by not
arguing against the denials in her brief. See Yousefi v. INS, 260
F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001).
- 2 -