UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1881
PENG LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 10, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen Gardner, Benjamin Vinocour, LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Theo
Nickerson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Peng Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his
applications for relief from removal.
Liu first challenges the determination that he failed
to establish 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 the evidence of record and conclude
that Liu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result.
Having failed to qualify for asylum, Liu cannot meet
the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v.
INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,
480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Next, we uphold the finding below
that Liu failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
that he would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Finally, we have considered Liu’s claim
that he was denied due process due to problems with translation
during the hearing and conclude that such claim lacks merit.
See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008).
2
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