UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2233
GUO JUAN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 24, 2009 Decided: January 12, 2010
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and John Preston BAILEY,
Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of
West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kim-Bun Thomas Li, LI, LATSEY & GUITERMAN, PLLC, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Division, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Achiezer Guggenheim, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Guo Juan Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for
review of the September 29, 2008, order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). In that order, the BIA dismissed
in part Lin’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) May 22,
2006, decision, concluding that the IJ did not err in finding
that she failed to meet her burden of proof for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA also denied Lin’s motion to
remand her case to the IJ for further consideration of evidence
that was not submitted during her hearing before the IJ.
Finally, the BIA remanded the case for the limited purpose of
providing the IJ the opportunity to identify the country to
which Lin’s removal may be made.
In support of her petition for review, Lin contends that
the BIA erred by dismissing her asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT claims because she established that she has suffered
past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future
persecution. She also contends that the BIA erred by denying
her motion to remand and that it violated her right to due
process and equal protection.
We have carefully reviewed the administrative record and
the parties’ briefs. We find that Lin has offered insufficient
evidence to establish that she suffered past persecution or has
2
a well-founded fear of future persecution. Accordingly, we find
no error in the BIA’s decision, and 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