Toure v. Ashcroft , 101 F. App'x 409 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1007
CHISSE TOURE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A70-888-811)
Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, Victor M. Lawrence,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Chisse Toure, a native of the Ivory Coast and a citizen
of Mali, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision to deny asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For
the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
Toure disputes the IJ’s conclusion that she was firmly
resettled in the Ivory Coast and lacked a well-founded fear of
persecution in Mali. 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 Toure fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. See Mussie v. INS, 172 F.3d
329, 331-32 (4th Cir. 1999); Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of
Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks.
Additionally, we reject Toure’s contention that the
Board’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision violated her rights
under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Blanco de
Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 280-83 (4th Cir. 2004).
- 2 -
We therefore 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
- 3 -