Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Cai v. Gonzales, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court denied Cai's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that Cai failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground as required for asylum. As the standard for withholding of removal is higher, the court also denied Cai's claim for withholding. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Cai v. Gonzales, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    The court denied Cai's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that Cai failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground as required for asylum. As the standard for withholding of removal is higher, the court also denied Cai's claim for withholding. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-04-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-2092

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court denied Cai's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that Cai failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground as required for asylum. As the standard for withholding of removal is higher, the court also denied Cai's claim for withholding. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    1 views3 pages

    Cai v. Gonzales, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court denied Cai's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that Cai failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground as required for asylum. As the standard for withholding of removal is higher, the court also denied Cai's claim for withholding. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-2092

    CHUAN PENG CAI,


    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.

    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration


    Appeals. (A77-353-883)

    Submitted:

    April 8, 2005

    Decided:

    April 29, 2005

    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Yueh-Mei Wu Rowan, ROWAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for


    Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
    Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jennifer L. Scheller,
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
    Respondent.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Chuan Peng Cai (Cai), a native and citizen of China,
    petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
    order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
    under the Convention Against Torture.*
    We will reverse the Board only if the evidence was so
    compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the
    requisite fear of persecution.

    Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325

    n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
    483-84 (1992)).

    We have reviewed the evidence of record, the

    immigration judges decision, and the Boards order and find


    substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Cai failed to
    establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future
    persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum.

    See 8

    C.F.R. 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on


    the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-Zacarias, 502
    U.S. at 483 (same).

    Moreover, because Cai cannot sustain his

    burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to


    withholding of removal.

    See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367

    (4th Cir. 2004) (Because the burden of proof for withholding of


    removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must

    Cai does not seek review of that part of the order that
    denied protection under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore,
    he has abandoned any such claim. See United States v. Al-Hamdi,
    356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004); Edwards v. City of
    Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
    - 2 -

    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 deny Cais 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 -

    You might also like