Xiao Min Wu v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1290 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1290 XIAO MIN WU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 13, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013 Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Nader Moslemi, MOSLEMI & ASSOCIATES, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley Goad, Assistant Director, Kristin Moresi, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Xiao Min Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal of the denying relief from removal. failed to qualify for Immigration Judge s decision Wu disputes the finding that she asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the Elias-Zacarias, findings of record 502 fact, considered U.S. 478, including 481 as a whole. (1992). findings on INS v. Administrative credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal de issues are reviewed novo, affording appropriate deference to the BIA s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). Li Fang Lin v. This court will reverse the Board only if the 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, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). 2 We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Wu failed to meet her statutory burdens. We therefore uphold the denial of Wu s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See Camera ( Because v. the Ashcroft, burden of 378 F.3d proof for 361, 367 (4th withholding Cir. of 2004) removal is higher than for asylum even though the facts that must be proved are the same an necessarily applicant ineligible for who is ineligible withholding of for asylum is under [8 removal U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3). ). Finally, to qualify for CAT protection, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2013). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of this relief. Accordingly, dispense with contentions are oral we deny argument adequately the petition because presented in the the for facts review. We and legal 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.
