UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1309
ZHI-MING LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 20, 2009 Decided: March 31, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Zhang, ZHANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General,
Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Zhi-Ming Lin, 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.
Before this court, Lin 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 Lin 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 Lin’s request
for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for
withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though
∗
In upholding the denial of asylum relief, we specifically
reject Lin’s claim that the immigration judge unreasonably
relied on a letter from his former counsel and find that
consideration of the letter was not fundamentally unfair. See
Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008).
2
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 Lin failed to show
that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Lin failed to meet the standard for relief under
the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an
applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that
he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country
of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). We find that Lin
failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration
court.
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