Jiang v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1545

CHANG RONG JIANG,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: March 9, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory
G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Chang Rong Jiang, 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 (the “CAT”).

Jiang first challenges the determination that he

failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. Jiang asserts

error in finding him not credible, in failing to consider

critical corroborating evidence, and in otherwise concluding

that his request for asylum was not supported by substantial

evidence. 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 Jiang 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 Jiang’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

2
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 Jiang failed to show

that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher

standard for withholding of removal.

Finally, Jiang seeks review of the denial of his

request for protection under the CAT, again challenging the

immigration judge’s reliance on an adverse credibility

determination. Where — as here — an adverse credibility

determination defeats both an asylum claim and a CAT claim, we

have required an applicant to present other evidence to support

the CAT claim before granting a petition for review. See Lin v.

Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 696 n.15 (4th Cir. 2008); Lin-Jian v.

Gonzales, 489 F.3d 182, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); Camara v. Ashcroft,

378 F.3d 361, 372 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Jiang did not submit

sufficient evidence to support his CAT claim, he is not entitled

to relief thereon.

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

3