Daw Mang Cingh Huai v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1761 DAW MANG CINGH HUAI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 14, 2009 Decided: August 20, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daw Mang Cingh Huai, Petitioner Pro Se. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Marshall Tamor Golding, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daw Mang Cingh Huai, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for relief from removal. Huai 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 Huai fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Huai 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). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Huai failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Burma. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). We therefore deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3