# You Rui Lu v. Holder

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 25, 2009 · 342 F. App'x 904

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1029924

## Case

- **Full name:** YOU RUI LU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 25, 2009
- **Citations:** 342 F. App'x 904
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Michael, Motz
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1029924

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2269

YOU RUI LU,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: June 3, 2009 Decided: August 25, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Brown, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Michael F.
Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr.,
Assistant Director, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

You Rui Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his

applications for relief from removal.

Lu 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 conclude

that Lu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary

result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Lu 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 Lu did not demonstrate eligibility for protection under the

Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), (3)

(2009).

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 the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1029924. Public record. Not legal advice.