UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2050
JIA QIANG TANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Zhang, ZHANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., for Petitioner. Michael
F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey,
Assistant Director, Theo Nickerson, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jia Qiang Tang, a native and citizen of China,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) order adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
order denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Tang 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 adopted and affirmed by the
Board, and the ruling that Tang 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
proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8
2
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 Tang’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