UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1735
YI HUI CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-1736
FUNG-WAI CHENG, a/k/a Fen Hua Zheng,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: February 14, 2013
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Zheng, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Stuart F.
Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Lindsay Corliss, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Yi Hui Chen and Fung-Wai Cheng, both natives and
citizens of China, petition for review of orders of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion to remand and
dismissing their appeals from the Immigration Judge’s denial of
their applications for relief from removal.
Petitioners first challenge the determination that
they 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
Petitioners’ claims and conclude that they fail to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify
for asylum, Petitioners 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).
Further, we uphold the finding below that Petitioners failed to
qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2012). Finally, we conclude based on our
review that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
Petitioners’ motion to remand. See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477
F.3d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 2007).
3
Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
4