UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2155
HAI YING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary J. Yerman, YERMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, New York, New York,
for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan
Robbins, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hai Ying Chen, 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, and denying her motion to
remand.
Chen 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 Chen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Chen 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). Next, we uphold the finding below
that Chen did not demonstrate eligibility for protection under
the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2),
(3) (2009). Finally, we have reviewed Chen’s claims and
conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
her motion to remand. See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th
Cir. 1998).
2
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