Chong Lang Yeru CHEN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent, 257 F. App'x 649

PER CURIAM: Chong Lang Yeru Chen, 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 the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Chen challenges the immigration judge’s finding that his testimony was not credible and that he otherwise failed to meet his burden of proving eligibility for asylum.

We will reverse this finding 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) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and we uphold credibility determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence. Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir.2006).

We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding and the determination that Chen failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (same).

Moreover, as Chen 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 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) [(2000)].”). In addition, we uphold the finding that Chen failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to China.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2007). Accordingly, we deny Chen’s 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.