Opinion

Ren v. Holder

  • 347 F. App'x 975
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Oct 21, 2009
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Gregory, Duncan, Agee
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.7%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1190

BIAO REN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: October 7, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Brown, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West,

Assistant Attorney General, John C. Hogan, Senior Litigation

Counsel, Kiley L. Kane, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Biao Ren, a native and citizen of China, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming

the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief

from removal.

Ren 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 conclude

that Ren fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary

result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Ren 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 Ren 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) (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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.