Xian Fang Ou v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1892

XIAN FANG OU,

Petitioner,

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 24, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert J. Adinolfi, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
Director, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington,
DC, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Xian Fang Ou, a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review from an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal

from the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for

asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the

Convention Against Torture. Ou contends that he established

that he suffered past persecution in China because of his

religious practices. We deny the petition for review.

This court will uphold the Board’s determination

unless it is “manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of

discretion.” Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir.

2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the

agency’s findings is narrow and deferential. Factual findings

are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. Substantial

evidence exists to support a finding unless the evidence was

such that any reasonable adjudicator would have been compelled

to conclude to the contrary. Id.

Persecution is an extreme concept and may include

actions less severe than threats to life or freedom but must

rise above mere harassment. Qiao Hua Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d

171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005). In some instances, brief detentions

accompanied by interrogations and minor beatings will fall short

2
of establishing past persecution. See Dandan v. Ashcroft, 339

F.3d 567, 573 (7th Cir. 2003).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that

substantial evidence supports the finding that Ou did not

establish past persecution. We note that the immigration judge

considered all the evidence that was in Ou’s favor. However, we

conclude that the evidence does not compel a different result.

We note Ou makes a brief challenge to the finding that he did

not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. We conclude

that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s

finding in this regard.

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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED