UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2078
BI RU LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 12, 2013 Decided: April 9, 2013
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Marotta, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD TARZIA, Belle Mead, New
Jersey, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant
Director, Remi Da Rocha-Afodu, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bi Ru Lin, 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 her appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying Lin’s requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
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 concerning the credibility of
witnesses, 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 eligible for asylum
2
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 agency’s finding that Lin
failed to meet her burden of establishing a well-founded fear of
persecution based on the birth of her United States citizen
children. In particular, we observe that the Board was entitled
to give significant weight to the State Department’s China:
Profile of Asylum Claims and Country Conditions, in which the
State Department concluded that children born overseas are not
counted for birth planning purposes when their parents return to
China, and returning families face, at worst, fines or economic
penalties. 1 We therefore uphold the denial of Lin’s requests for
asylum and withholding of removal. See Camara 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
1
We also agree with the Board that the record does not
support a finding that Lin would be fined in an amount that
would constitute persecution or that she would be persecuted for
non-payment of such a fine.
3
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”). 2
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
this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2
Lin has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of
her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
She has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
4