Francois v. Ashcroft , 115 F. App'x 137 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1230
LUCIENNE FRANCOIS,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-489-397)
Submitted: November 22, 2004 Decided: December 14, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martin A. Kascavage, SCHOENER & KASCAVAGE, P.C., Philadephia,
Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rena I.
Curtis, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lucienne Francois, a native and citizen of Haiti,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT).* For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for
review.
Francois asserts that she established eligibility for
asylum by showing past persecution and a well-founded fear of
future persecution. 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 Francois fails to show that
the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot
grant the relief that Francois seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Francois’
application for withholding of removal. See Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d
198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430 (1987). We thus deny the petition for review.
*
Francois does not dispute the denial of relief under CAT.
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
- 3 -