Amelia v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
FNU AMELIA, 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. (A97-640-908)
June 12, 2006
June 29, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven A. Morley, MORLEY, SURIN & GRIFFIN, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, John E. Cunningham III, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Fnu Amelia, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* 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." 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
We have reviewed the evidence of record and
conclude that Amelia fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Amelia
cannot meet the higher standard to qualify 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.
Amelia does not challenge the finding that she failed to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. - 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?