Liang Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1580 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1580 LIANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of then Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: November 18, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Nader Moslemi, MOSLEMI & ASSOCIATES, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Acting Assistant Director, Justin R. Markel, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Liang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review (Board) of an order dismissing his of the appeal Board of decision denying relief from removal. of the Immigration Immigration Appeals Judge s Chen disputes the finding that he failed to qualify for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the Elias-Zacarias, findings of record 502 fact, considered U.S. 478, including 481 as a (1992). findings on whole. INS v. Administrative credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). This court reviews legal issues de novo, affording appropriate deference to the [Board s] interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). We will reverse the Board only if the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). 2 We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board s finding that Chen failed to meet his statutory burdens. We therefore uphold the denial of Chen s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See Camera ( Because v. the Ashcroft, burden of 378 F.3d proof for 361, 367 (4th withholding Cir. of 2004) removal is higher than for asylum even though the facts that must be proved are the same an necessarily U.S.C.] applicant ineligible for who is ineligible withholding § 1231(b)(3). ). asylum is removal under [8 Finally, qualify for of to for CAT protection, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the § 1208.16(c)(2) proposed (2013). country Based on of removal. our review, 8 we C.F.R. find that substantial evidence supports the agency s conclusion that Chen did not qualify for this relief. Accordingly, dispense with contentions are oral we deny argument adequately the petition because presented in the the for facts review. We and legal materials before this 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.
