Illescas-Diaz v. Holder , 419 F. App'x 321 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-1780
    JESSICA   SUSSETTE   ILLESCAS-DIAZ,   a/k/a   Yesica      Suset
    Illescas-Dias, a/k/a Jessica Sussette Illescas Dias,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   February 28, 2011              Decided:   March 21, 2011
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Linda A. Dominguez, L.A. DOMINGUEZ LAW, LLC, Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
    John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rosanne M. Perry,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Jessica Sussette Illescas-Diaz, a native and citizen
    of Guatemala, 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.
    Illescas-Diaz      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 Illescas-Diaz fails to show that the evidence compels a
    contrary    result.         Having     failed           to    qualify       for     asylum,
    Illescas-Diaz      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: 10-1780

Citation Numbers: 419 F. App'x 321

Judges: Davis, King, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 3/21/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023