Fei Yang v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-2082 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2082 FEI FENG YANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 27, 2009 Decided: March 31, 2009 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fei Feng Yang, Petitioner Pro Se. Brianne Whelan Cohen, Daniel Eric Goldman, Tyrone Sojourner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; George William Maugans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Fei Feng Yang, 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 that she applications for relief from removal. Yang first challenges the determination failed to establish eligibility for asylum. of a determination denying eligibility for 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 Yang fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Yang 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). We further uphold the finding below that Yang failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured ยง 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. Finally, we have reviewed the record in light of Yang s claim that her right to due process was violated by difficulties with translation during the proceedings, and we 2 find that claim to be without merit. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 (4th Cir. 2002). We dispense therefore with oral deny argument the petition because the for review. facts 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.
