Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-1934
Submitted:
Decided:
May 9, 2012
Wendy Tso, LAW OFFICE OF WENDY TSO, P.C., New York, New York,
for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ada E.
Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, Trial
Attorney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Zhong Qing Ou, a native and citizen of the Peoples
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of
Immigration
Appeals
(Board)
sustaining
the
Governments
and
substantial
ordering
Ou
be
removed
evidence
supported
the
to
China.
IJs
Ou
finding
contends
that
he
We
forced
abortion
after
becoming
pregnant
with
their
second
and
that
officials
physically
assaulted
him
after
he
factual
findings
were
clearly
erroneous
because
the
1158(a)
unwilling
(2006).
or
The
unable
to
INA
defines
return
to
his
refugee
or
her
as
8 U.S.C.
a
native
person
country
of
particular
race,
social
religion,
group,
1101(a)(42)(A) (2006).
or
threat
of
death,
or
nationality,
political
membership
opinion.
in
U.S.C.
torture,
or
injury
to
ones
person
or
Hua
Li v.
Gonzales,
405
F.3d
171,
177
(4th
Cir.
2005)
see
C.F.R.
1208.13(a)
(2011),
and
can
establish
8 C.F.R. 1208.13(b)(1)
2004).
Because
Ou
did
not
establish
past
persecution,
the
Id. at 187.
founded
fear
standard
objective component.
contains
both
The well-
subjective
and
an
Gandziami-Mickhou v.
can
be
met
through
the
The subjective
presentation
of
candid,
405
omitted).
F.3d
at
176
(internal
quotation
marks
and
Qiao Hua
citations
We
will
eligibility
evidence
for
on
of
the
asylum
the
Elias-Zacarias,
findings
affirm
if
record
502
fact
Boards
it
is
supported
considered
U.S.
478,
are
determination
as
481
(1992).
conclusive
unless
regarding
by
substantial
whole.
INS
v.
Administrative
any
reasonable
affording
appropriate
deference
to
the
BIAs
Li
Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).
This
Court
will
reverse
the
Board
only
if
the
evidence
to
find
the
requisite
fear
of
persecution.
and
the
legal
conclusions
de
novo.
See
C.F.R.
636
n.6
(4th
Cir.
oppressors
motivation,
Valladares,
632
F.3d
2008),
determinations
intentions
at
127-28,
and
and
regarding
opinions,
expressions
an
Crespinof
the
Id., 632
conclude
that
determination
that
substantial
the
IJs
evidence
finding
supports
regarding
the
Ous
because
Petitioners control.
it
relied
upon
factors
beyond
the
The Board
acknowledged that its review of the IJs findings was for clear
error
and
held
that
the
IJ
clearly
erred
by
relying
upon
for
review.
We
with
oral
we
deny
argument
the
petition
because
the
facts
and
legal
PETITION DENIED