UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1999
RICHARD FENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 10, 2009 Decided: December 15, 2009
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Blake P. Somers, BLAKE P. SOMERS, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S.
Wernery, Assistant Director, Susan Bennett Green, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Richard Feng, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
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.
Feng first 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 Feng’s claims and the evidence of
record and conclude that he fails to show that the evidence
compels a contrary result. We therefore find that substantial
evidence supports the denial of relief.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Feng’s request
for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for
withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though
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 Feng failed to show
2
that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
Finally, we find that substantial evidence supports
the finding that Feng 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) (2009). We find that
Feng 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