Yan Zheng v. Michael Mukasey, No. 08-1355 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1355 YAN ZHENG, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 8, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Zhang, ZHANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yan Zheng, 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. Zheng first challenges the determination failed to establish eligibility for asylum. of a determination denying eligibility for that she To obtain reversal 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. (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Zheng fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Zheng 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 Zheng failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because 2 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.