UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2082
FEI FENG YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 27, 2009 Decided: March 31, 2009
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fei Feng Yang, Petitioner Pro Se. Brianne Whelan Cohen, Daniel
Eric Goldman, Tyrone Sojourner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; George William Maugans, III, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fei Feng Yang, a native and citizen of China,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her
applications for relief from removal.
Yang first challenges the determination that she
failed to establish 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 Yang fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result.
Having failed to qualify for asylum, Yang cannot meet
the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v.
INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,
480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). We further uphold the finding below
that Yang failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
that she would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Finally, we have reviewed the record in
light of Yang’s claim that her right to due process was violated
by difficulties with translation during the proceedings, and we
2
find that claim to be without merit. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316,
324 (4th Cir. 2002).
We therefore 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