Yu Zhao v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1269 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1269 YU FENG ZHAO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 18, 2009 Decided: March 26, 2009 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yu Feng Zhao, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Eric Warren Marsteller, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yu Feng Zhao, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China ( China ), petitions for review of an order of the Board of immigration Immigration judge s ( IJ ) Appeals denial ( Board ) of asylum and withholding of removal. determination, establish a affirmed by well-founded the fear Zhao s affirming the application for Zhao challenges the IJ s Board, of that future she failed persecution to under China s one-family, one-child policy. Applicants bear the burden of proving eligibility for asylum. Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008). An alien can establish her eligibility for asylum by proving she has a well-founded fear of future persecution on a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2) (2008); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). The well-founded fear standard contains both Ngarurih, 371 F.3d at an objective and a subjective element. 187. The concrete objective facts circumstances that to element would fear requires lead a a showing reasonable persecution. can be met through the person specific, in Gandziami-Mickhou Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). component of like v. The subjective presentation of candid, credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the reality of 2 the circumstances and be validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere irrational apprehension. Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We will affirm a determination regarding eligibility for asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 478, 481 (1992). the evidence INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. We will reverse the Board s decision only if presented . . . was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that it does not compel a contrary result than that reached by the Board and the IJ. seeks. Thus, we cannot grant the relief Zhao Similarly, as Zhao does not qualify for asylum, she is ineligible for withholding of removal. 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). See Camara v. Ashcroft, 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 ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because 3 the for facts for Id. review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
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.
