Paul v. Holder , 358 F. App'x 444 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1061
GESPER PAUL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 18, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gesper Paul, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for
relief from removal.
Paul first challenges the determination that he 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 Paul fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result.
Having failed to qualify for asylum, Paul 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). Finally, we uphold the finding below
that Paul failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
that he would be tortured if removed to Haiti. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2009).
We therefore deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3