Kayibanda v. Mukasey , 292 F. App'x 258 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1159
    DIANA KAYIBANDA,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   September 2, 2008          Decided:   September 11, 2008
    Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Peter Nyoh, PETER NYOH AND ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
    Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
    Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Lauren E.
    Fascett, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for
    Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Diana Kayibanda, a native of Uganda and a citizen of
    Rwanda,   petitions   for   review      of    an    order   of    the   Board   of
    Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her
    applications for relief from removal.
    Kayibanda 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 conclude that Kayibanda fails
    to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed
    to qualify for asylum, Kayibanda 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).
    Accordingly,     we   deny   the    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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1159

Citation Numbers: 292 F. App'x 258

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, Wilkins

Filed Date: 9/11/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024