UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1284
ZHU CHEN,
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: September 13, 2012
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart
F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jamie M. Dowd,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Dana M. Camilleri, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Zhu Chen, 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 his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the
petition for review.
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) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed 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). This court 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).
Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an alien is not
2
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)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
finding. We further conclude that Chen failed to present
sufficient independent evidence of past persecution on account
of a protected ground, notwithstanding the adverse credibility
determination, as discussed in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361,
370 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore uphold the denial of Chen’s
requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. at 367
(“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).”).
Additionally, Chen challenges the denial of his
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
3
the denial of his 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
4