[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 17, 2006
No. 05-13113 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA No. A96-013-807
ROUZE JIANG,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(January 17, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Rouze Jiang, a native and citizen of China, entered the United
States at Miami International Airport without authorization on October 18, 2002.
Four days later, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) issued a
Notice to Appear, alleging that Petitioner was subject to removal pursuant to
Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as
amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). On February 6, 2002, Petitioner filed an
application for asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and relief under the
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”).
An immigration judge (“IJ”) heard Petitioner’s application on June 20, 2003.
After considering the evidence presented, the IJ issued an oral decision finding
Petitioner removable as alleged and denying his application. Petitioner appealed
the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed it
without opinion. Petitioner now seeks review in this court.1
We review the BIA’s decision, “except to the extent that it expressly adopts
the IJ’s opinion.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir.
2001) (internal citations omitted). “Insofar as the [BIA] adopts the IJ’s reasoning,
we review the IJ’s decision as well.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Here,
1
Petitioner’s brief does not challenge the denial of CAT relief. Hence, we do not
consider the matter.
2
because the BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision as to the merits of the claims,
we review the IJ’s decision, see Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1284. We review IJ’s
factual determinations under the substantial evidence test, and we will “affirm the
[IJ’s] decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence
on the record considered as a whole.” Forgue v. United States Attorney Gen., 401
F.3d 1282, 1286 (11th Cir. 2005). In order “[t]o reverse the IJ’s decision, we must
conclude that the record not only supports [reversal], but compels it.” Yang v.
U.S. Atty. Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1202 (11th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in
original) (quotation omitted).
An alien is entitled to asylum if he can establish, with specific and credible
evidence: (1) past persecution on account of religion or other statutorily listed
factor; or (2) a “well-founded fear” that his religion or other statutorily listed factor
will cause future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a), (b); Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at
1287. “An alien seeking withholding of removal . . . bears the burden of
demonstrating that [he] more-likely-than-not would be persecuted or tortured upon
[his] return to the country in question,” on account of, inter alia, his “political
opinion.” Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003).
“An alien who has not shown past persecution, though, may still be entitled to
withholding of removal if [he] can demonstrate a future threat to [his] life or
freedom on a protected ground in [his] country.” Id. If an alien is unable to meet
3
the “well founded fear” standard for asylum, “he is generally precluded from
qualifying for either asylum or withholding of [removal].” Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at
1292-93.
Because there is no evidence in this record that Petitioner had been
physically injured by the Chinese government or that his illegal departure from
China would cause him harm if he returned, we are not compelled to the
conclusion that Petitioner met his burden of proving past persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution.
PETITION DENIED.
4