Sow Mint A. Vall v. Holder , 322 F. App'x 287 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1808
    AMINETOU MINT WEHBINE SOW MINT A. VALL,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   March 27, 2009                 Decided:   April 14, 2009
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kell Enow, ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
    Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General,
    Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Joseph A. O’Connell,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Aminetou Mint Wehbine Sow Mint A. Vall, a native and
    citizen of Mauritania, 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.
    Sow Mint A. Vall 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 Sow Mint A. Vall fails to show that the evidence compels a
    contrary result.     Having failed to qualify for asylum, Sow Mint
    A. Vall 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: 08-1808

Citation Numbers: 322 F. App'x 287

Judges: Agee, Duncan, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/14/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023