UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1269
YU FENG ZHAO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 18, 2009 Decided: March 26, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yu Feng Zhao, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Eric
Warren Marsteller, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yu Feng Zhao, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China (“China”), petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Zhao’s application for
asylum and withholding of removal. Zhao challenges the IJ’s
determination, affirmed by the Board, that she failed to
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution under
China’s “one-family, one-child” policy.
“Applicants bear the burden of proving eligibility for
asylum.” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2006);
see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008). An alien can establish her
eligibility for asylum by proving she has a well-founded fear of
future persecution on a protected ground. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2) (2008); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187
(4th Cir. 2004). The well-founded fear standard contains both
an objective and a subjective element. Ngarurih, 371 F.3d at
187. The objective element requires a showing of specific,
concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person in like
circumstances to fear persecution. Gandziami-Mickhou v.
Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). “The subjective
component can be met through the presentation of candid,
credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of
persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the reality of
2
the circumstances and be validated with specific, concrete facts
. . . and it cannot be mere irrational apprehension.” Li v.
Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
We will affirm a determination regarding eligibility
for asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence on the
record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 (1992). We will reverse the Board’s decision “only if
the evidence presented . . . was so compelling that no
reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir.
2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude
that it does not compel a contrary result than that reached by
the Board and the IJ. Thus, we cannot grant the relief Zhao
seeks. Similarly, as Zhao does not qualify for asylum, she is
ineligible for 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).” Id.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4