UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1290
XIAO MIN WU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 13, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013
Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Nader Moslemi, MOSLEMI & ASSOCIATES, New York, New York,
for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Shelley Goad, Assistant Director, Kristin Moresi,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Xiao Min Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision
denying relief from removal. Wu disputes the finding that she
failed to qualify for asylum, withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
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 BIA’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).
2
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Wu
failed to meet her statutory burdens. We therefore uphold the
denial of Wu’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal.
See Camera 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).”).
Finally, to qualify for CAT protection, a petitioner
bears the burden of demonstrating 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) (2013). We have
reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial
evidence supports the agency’s denial of this relief.
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
3