UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1580
LIANG CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of then Board of Immigration
Appeals
Submitted: November 18, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Nader Moslemi, MOSLEMI & ASSOCIATES, New York, New York,
for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General,
Francis W. Fraser, Acting Assistant Director, Justin R. Markel,
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Liang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s
decision denying relief from removal. Chen disputes the finding
that he 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) (2012).
This court reviews 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).
2
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Chen
failed to meet his statutory burdens. We therefore uphold the
denial of Chen’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). Based on our review, we find that
substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Chen
did not qualify for 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