UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1255
WEN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 13, 2013 Decided: August 30, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zhiyuan Qian, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD KARIKARI, P.C., New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Jennifer J. Keeney, Imran R. Zaidi, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Wen Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the
petition for review.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of
fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the
[Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality
Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,
517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse
the Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at
483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an alien is not
2
eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to
the law and an abuse of discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592
F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)
(2006)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
finding. We further conclude that Lin failed to present
sufficient independent evidence of past persecution,
notwithstanding the adverse credibility determination, as
discussed in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir.
2004). We therefore uphold the denial of Lin’s requests for
asylum and withholding of removal. See id. at 367 (“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).”).
Additionally, Lin challenges the denial of her request
for protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify
for such protection, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of
showing “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) (2013). Based on our review of the
record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
3
denial of relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124
(4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review).
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4