UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1253
LIANG CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 9, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Liang Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Eric Warren Marsteller, Jem Colleen Sponzo,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Liang Chen, who claims to be a native and citizen of
the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his
appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture.
Chen first 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 Chen 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 Chen’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 Chen failed to show
2
that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
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
∗
In his informal brief before this court, Chen has failed
to raise any challenges to the denial of his request for
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore
find that he has waived appellate review of this claim. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues
raised in the informal brief.”); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
3