Hai Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 07-2155 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2155 HAI YING CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary J. Yerman, YERMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hai Ying Chen, 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 her applications for relief from removal, and denying her motion to remand. Chen challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility determination denying for asylum. eligibility To for obtain relief, reversal an of alien a must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Chen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Chen 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). Next, we uphold the finding below that Chen did not demonstrate eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. (3) (2009). Finally, we have See 8 C.F.R. ยง 1208.16(c)(2), reviewed Chen s claims and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to remand. See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998). 2 Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.