UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1224
YONG HUANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 5, 2012
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adedayo O. Idowu, LAW OFFICES OF ADEDAYO O. IDOWU, PLLC, New
York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey R. Meyer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yong 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 his appeal of the
Immigration Judge’s decision denying relief from removal. Huang
first disputes the finding that he failed to qualify for asylum,
contending that he demonstrated past persecution and asserting
that the Board erred in concluding that his resistance to
China’s coercive population control policy was not one central
reason for the alleged persecution.
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 BIA’s
interpretation of the INA 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.”
2
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d
316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Huang failed to show that he suffered past persecution or has a
well-founded fear of future persecution. We therefore uphold
the denial of Huang’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, Huang challenges the denial of his
application for protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). To qualify for this relief, 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) (2012). We have reviewed
the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence
supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4