Jiang v. Holder , 316 F. App'x 289 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1545
CHANG RONG JIANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 28, 2009 Decided: March 9, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory
G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Chang Rong Jiang, 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 denial of his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (the “CAT”).
Jiang first challenges the determination that he
failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. Jiang asserts
error in finding him not credible, in failing to consider
critical corroborating evidence, and in otherwise concluding
that his request for asylum was not supported by substantial
evidence. To 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.” INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the
evidence of record and conclude that Jiang fails to show that
the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot
grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Jiang’s request
for withholding of removal. “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
2
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Jiang failed to show
that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
Finally, Jiang seeks review of the denial of his
request for protection under the CAT, again challenging the
immigration judge’s reliance on an adverse credibility
determination. Where — as here — an adverse credibility
determination defeats both an asylum claim and a CAT claim, we
have required an applicant to present other evidence to support
the CAT claim before granting a petition for review. See Lin v.
Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 696 n.15 (4th Cir. 2008); Lin-Jian v.
Gonzales, 489 F.3d 182, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 372 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Jiang did not submit
sufficient evidence to support his CAT claim, he is not entitled
to relief thereon.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3