Xiao Wu v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-1454 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1454 XIAO YUAN WU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: February 8, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Xiao Yuan Wu, Petitioner Pro Se. Raphael Choi, Chief Counsel, Arlington, Virginia; Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Eric Warren Marsteller, Tyrone Sojourner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Xiao Yuan Wu, 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 his applications for relief from removal. Wu first challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination relief, denying eligibility for 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. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that fails Wu result. to show that the evidence compels a contrary Having failed to qualify for asylum, Wu cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-32 (1987)). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Wu failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. ยง 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). 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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.