UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1622
JIA ZHANG CHEN; DAN FENG GAO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 20, 2010 Decided: November 18, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jia Zhang Chen, Dan Feng Gao, Petitioners Pro Se. Robbin
Kinmonth Blaya, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jia Zhang Chen and his wife, Dan Feng Gao
(collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of the
People’s Republic of China, petition for review of two separate
orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing
their appeals from the immigration judge’s denial of their
requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
The Petitioners first challenge the determination that
they failed to establish 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). Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an
alien is not 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)).
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that
the Petitioners fail to demonstrate that the evidence in their
case compels a contrary result. As found by the Board, the
Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the birth of their
United States citizen children violated family planning policies
2
in the Fujian Province or that they will be subject to forced
sterilization or other persecution if returned to China. See
Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (B.I.A. 2007) (relying on
State Department reports and concluding that the alien’s
evidence failed to demonstrate that China has a policy of
requiring forced sterilization of a parent who returns with
children born abroad or that any sanctions imposed in the Fujian
Province would rise to the level of persecution). 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
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.
We also conclude that substantial evidence supports
the finding that the Petitioners failed to meet the standard for
relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such
relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than
not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
3
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Based on
our review, we agree that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate
that they will more likely than not be tortured due to any
violation of China’s family planning policies or for violating
their country’s illegal exit laws. See Xia Yue Chen v.
Gonzales, 434 F.3d 212, 222 (3d Cir. 2005); Matter of J-W-S-, 24
I. & N. Dec. at 195.
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
4