Angira v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2105
LUDDY ANGIRA; KEENS OMONDI OYUGI,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 30, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, ENOW & ASSOCIATES, Marietta, Georgia, for
Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C.
Peachey, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luddy Angira and her husband, derivative applicant
Keens Oyugi, both natives and citizens of Kenya, petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of
Angira’s applications for relief from removal.
Petitioners first challenge the determination that
Angira 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 Petitioners fail to show that the evidence compels
a contrary result.
Having failed to qualify for asylum, Angira 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 Angira failed to demonstrate that it is more
likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Kenya.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010).
Accordingly, we 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