Jianwen Huang v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1539 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1539 JIANWEN HUANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 17, 2012 Decided: January 7, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. June Zhou, LAW OFFICES OF JUNE ZHOU, PLLC, Deerfield Beach, Florida, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Allen W. Hausman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jianwen Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge s denial of his applications for relief from removal. Huang first challenges the determination failed to establish eligibility for asylum. of a determination denying eligibility for that he 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 Huang s claims and conclude that Huang fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Huang 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 Huang failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012). 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 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.