Shiru Chai v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1991 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1991 SHIRU CHAI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 12, 2013 Decided: February 27, 2013 Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem C. Sponzo, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shiru Chai, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge s withholding of denial removal, Against Torture. and of his requests protection under for the asylum, Convention For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review. A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). INS v. Elias- Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. (2006). Legal issues to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) are reviewed the [Board] s de novo, affording appropriate deference [Immigration and regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the Board only if the Nationality Act] interpretation and any of the attendant 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, 316, 296 F.3d 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, [t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum 2 is conclusive unless manifestly abuse of discretion. contrary to the law and an Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Chai failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in China on account of his membership in the China Democracy Party. We therefore uphold the denial of Chai s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. at 367 ( Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum even though the facts that must be proved are the same an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3). ). Accordingly, we dispense with contentions are oral deny the petition for review. * argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED * Chai has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 3