UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1324
YA YING WU; BAO GUO ZHAO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 5, 2010 Decided: October 29, 2010
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New
Jersey, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, David H.
Wetmore, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ya Ying Wu and her husband, Bao Guo Zhao (collectively
“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of
China, petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of their requests for asylum and
withholding of removal. Wu is the primary applicant for asylum;
the claims of her husband are derivative of her application.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2010).
The Petitioners first challenge the determination that
they failed to establish their eligibility for asylum. To
obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for
relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he [or she]
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 the Petitioners fail to
demonstrate that the evidence compels a contrary result. We
therefore find that substantial evidence supports the denial of
relief.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of the Petitioners’
request for withholding of removal. “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
2
applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible
for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because
the Petitioners failed to establish that they are eligible for
asylum, they cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of
removal.
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