UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1177
JINGFENG HUANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 29, 2012 Decided: August 31, 2012
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy Nader Moslemi, ALL PEOPLES LAW CENTER, P.A., New York, New
York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Jason
Wisecup, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jingfeng Huang, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
In her brief on appeal, Huang challenges the agency’s
determination that she failed to establish eligibility for
withholding of removal. * “Withholding of removal is available
under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more
likely than not that her life or freedom would be threatened in
the country of removal because of her race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.” Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th
Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)
(2006). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination as well as its finding that Huang failed to
demonstrate past persecution or a clear probability of future
*
As Huang appears to recognize in her brief, our review is
limited to the agency’s denial of her requests for withholding
of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353,
358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).
2
persecution on account of her religion. Because the evidence
does not compel us to conclude to the contrary, we uphold the
denial of relief. See Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th
Cir. 2011), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 6, 2012).
Huang also challenges the denial of her request for
protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for
such protection, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of
showing “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) (2012). Based on our review of the
record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
denial of her request for relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495
F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of
review).
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