Yi Hui Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1735 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1735 YI HUI CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 12-1736 FUNG-WAI CHENG, a/k/a Fen Hua Zheng, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: February 14, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Zheng, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay Corliss, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Yi Hui Chen and Fung-Wai Cheng, both natives and citizens of China, petition for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeals from the Immigration Judge s denial of their applications for relief from removal. Petitioners they failed to first establish challenge the eligibility for determination asylum. To that obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for 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. 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. We have reviewed the evidence of record and Petitioners claims and conclude that they fail to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Petitioners 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). Further, we uphold the finding below that Petitioners failed to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. C.F.R. ยง 1208.16(c) (2012). 8 Finally, we conclude based on our review that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners motion to remand. See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 2007). 3 Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DENIED 4
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.
