UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1528
CHAO ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 7, 2009 Decided: May 20, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yan Wang, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G.
Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Matthew
A. Spurlock, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chao Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order
affirming the immigration judge’s order denying his application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Zheng challenges the immigration
judge’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board.
For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for
review.
We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if it
is supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales,
446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006), and reverse the Board’s
decision only if the evidence “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 quotations and citations omitted).
Having reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s
decision, we find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by
the Board, and the ruling that Zheng failed to establish past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as
necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(I), (ii) (2006) (providing that the burden of
2
proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (same). Because the record does not
compel a different result, we will not disturb the Board’s
denial of Zheng’s application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
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