Sami v. Gonzales , 159 F. App'x 487 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1535
BOTENDELE DANIEL SAMI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-621-522)
Submitted: December 5, 2005 Decided: December 16, 2005
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Botendele Daniel Sami, a native and citizen of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.*
In his petition for review, Sami challenges the
immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his
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 Sami fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
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
*
Sami did not challenge the immigration judge’s denial of his
requests for withholding of removal or protection under the
Convention Against Torture before the Board. We therefore lack
jurisdiction to consider these arguments on appeal. See Asika v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125
S. Ct. 861 (2005).
- 2 -