UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1892
XIAN FANG OU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 24, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
Director, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington,
DC, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Xian Fang Ou, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review from an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for
asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture. Ou contends that he established
that he suffered past persecution in China because of his
religious practices. We deny the petition for review.
This court will uphold the Board’s determination
unless it is “manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of
discretion.” Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the
agency’s findings is narrow and deferential. Factual findings
are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. Substantial
evidence exists to support a finding unless the evidence was
such that any reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled
to conclude to the contrary. Id.
Persecution is an extreme concept and may include
actions less severe than threats to life or freedom but must
rise above mere harassment. Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d
171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005). In some instances, brief detentions
accompanied by interrogations and minor beatings will fall short
2
of establishing past persecution. See Dandan v. Ashcroft, 339
F.3d 567, 573 (7th Cir. 2003).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that
substantial evidence supports the finding that Ou did not
establish past persecution. We note that the immigration judge
considered all the evidence that was in Ou’s favor. However, we
conclude that the evidence does not compel a different result.
We note Ou makes a brief challenge to the finding that he did
not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. We conclude
that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s
finding in this regard.
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