UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1216
YANDUAN NI, a/k/a Yan-Duan Ni,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
Submitted: October 18, 2012 Decided: November 19, 2012
Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zhiyuan Qian, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD KARIKARI, P.C., New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Justin R. Markel, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yanduan Ni, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the
Immigration Judge’s decision denying relief from removal. Ni
first disputes the finding that she failed to qualify for asylum
and withholding of removal.
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.” 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 Ni
2
failed to show that she suffered past persecution or has a
well-founded fear of future persecution. We therefore uphold
the denial of Ni’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).”).
Next, Ni challenges the denial of her 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. Finally, we
have considered Ni’s contention that the Board improperly
affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief without opinion, and find her
contention to be without merit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)
(2012).
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