LiQin Shi v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 480 F. App'x 726 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2320
LIQIN SHI, a/k/a Li Qin Shi,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, United States
Department of Justice,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 17, 2012 Decided: August 14, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yee Ling Poon, Robert Duk-Hwan Kim, LAW OFFICE OF YEE LING POON,
LLC, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Tim Ramnitz, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
LiQin Shi, a native and citizen of China, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) denying her motion to remand and dismissing her appeal
from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for
relief from removal.
Shi first challenges the determination that she failed
to establish eligibility for asylum. 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 Shi’s
claims and conclude that Shi fails to show that the evidence
compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum,
Shi 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 conclude
based on our review that the Board did not abuse its discretion
in denying Shi’s motion to remand. See Hussain v. Gonzales, 477
F.3d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3