UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2173
QING TUAN ZHENG,
Petitioner,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-227-112)
Submitted: August 31, 2007 Decided: September 27, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fengling Liu, LAW OFFICE OF FENGLING LIU, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie
McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Debora Gerads, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Qing Tuan Zheng, 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 without opinion the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have reviewed the administrative record
and the immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial
evidence supports the ruling that Zheng failed to establish past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is on
the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Moreover, as Zheng
cannot sustain his burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish
his entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“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).”). We also find that
Zheng’s due process rights were not violated by the immigration
judge’s decision to disallow Zheng’s wife’s testimony.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the immigration judge. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -