UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1539
JIANWEN HUANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 17, 2012 Decided: January 7, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
June Zhou, LAW OFFICES OF JUNE ZHOU, PLLC, Deerfield Beach,
Florida, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Allen W.
Hausman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jianwen Huang, a native and citizen of China,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s
denial of his applications for relief from removal.
Huang first challenges the determination that he
failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal
of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien
“must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that
no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear
of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84
(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and Huang’s
claims and conclude that Huang fails to show that the evidence
compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum,
Huang cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold
the finding below that Huang failed to demonstrate that it is
more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to
China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3