UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1408
WEI QIANG LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 16, 2013 Decided: September 19, 2013
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F.
Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Janice K. Redfern,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Thankful T. Vanderstar, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Wei Qiang 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 his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his 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.
We must affirm a determination regarding eligibility
for asylum or withholding of removal if it is 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 are conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We review legal issues 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). We 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 eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless
2
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 finding that Lin failed
to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution in China. We therefore uphold the denial of
his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“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 his 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
denial of his request for relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495
F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of
review).
3
We therefore 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
4