Sy v. Gonzales

Filing 920070207


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1564 MAMADOU BELLA SY, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the U.S., Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A71-798-459) Submitted: January 19, 2007 Decided: February 7, 2007 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John T. Riely, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mamadou Bella Sy, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his 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 Sy fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Sy cannot meet the Chen v. higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. 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 -

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?