Chery v. Holder , 400 F. App'x 772 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2103
FEQUIERE CHERY; MARIE GUIRLENE CHERY; ANDROT GUERLAIN
CHERY; ANN ENIVE CHERY,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 16, 2010 Decided: November 1, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph M. Champagne, Jr., Toms River, New Jersey, for
Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W.
Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kathryn L. DeAngelis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Fequiere Chery, and derivative beneficiaries Marie
Guirlene Chery, Androt Guerlain Chery and Ann Enive Chery, all
natives and citizens of Haiti, petition for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from
the Immigration Judge’s denial of Fequiere Chery’s applications
for relief from removal.
Petitioners first challenge the determination that
Fequiere Chery 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, Petitioners
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). Next, we uphold the
finding below that Petitioners failed to demonstrate that it is
more likely than not that Fequiere Chery would be tortured if
removed to Haiti. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Finally, we
have considered Petitioners’ claim that translation problems
2
during the hearing amounted to a denial of due process, and
conclude that such claim lacks merit. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535
F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008).
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
3