Yanduan Ni v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1216 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1216 YANDUAN NI, a/k/a Yan-Duan Ni, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: October 18, 2012 Decided: November 19, 2012 Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zhiyuan Qian, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD KARIKARI, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Justin R. Markel, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yanduan Ni, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge s decision denying relief from removal. Ni first disputes the finding that she failed to qualify for asylum and withholding of removal. 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 (1992). findings on INS whole. 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 deference to are reviewed the BIA s novo, interpretation affording of the appropriate INA and any attendant regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). 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). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Ni 2 failed to show that she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution. We therefore uphold the and denial of Ni s requests for asylum withholding of See Camera v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. removal. 2004) ( 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). ). Next, Ni challenges the denial of her application for protection qualify under for the this Convention relief, a Against petitioner Torture bears (CAT). the To burden of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that he or she would be removal. tortured if removed to the proposed 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012). country of We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of CAT protection. have considered Ni s contention that the Finally, we Board improperly affirmed the IJ s denial of relief without opinion, and find her See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) contention to be without merit. (2012). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because 3 the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
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.
