Geris v. Holder ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1219
AYAD RAMZI GERIS; FATEN MOUSSA MOUSSA; GEORGE AYAD GERIS;
TONY AYAD GERIS; AMIRA AYAD GERIS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 6, 2010
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant
Director, Brendan P. Hogan, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ayad Ramzi Geris, * a native and citizen of Egypt,
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.
Geris 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 Geris fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Geris 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
*
Geris’s wife, Faten Moussa Moussa, and his children,
George Ayad Geris, Tony Ayad Geris, and Amira Ayad Geris, are
derivative applicants of Geris’s claim for asylum.
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3