Seleth Selebangue v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090413

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1889

SELETH GLANGH TANGUY SELEBANGUE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

March 10, 2009

Decided:

April 13, 2009

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Seleth Glangh Tanguy Selebangue, Petitioner Pro Balasquide, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Virginia, for Respondent.

Se. Javier Arlington,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Seleth Glangh Tanguy Selebangue, a native and citizen of the Central African Republic, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for

relief from removal. Selebangue first challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. of a determination denying eligibility for To obtain reversal 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." (1992). that INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude fails to show that the to evidence compels a

Selebangue result.

contrary Selebangue

Having meet

failed more

qualify

for

asylum, for

cannot

the

stringent

standard

withholding of removal.

Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th

Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). We further uphold the finding that Selebangue failed to

demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to the Central African Republic. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). 8 C.F.R.

Finally, we uphold the determination See

below that Selebangue filed a frivolous asylum application.

2

8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2008); Matter of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151 (B.I.A. 2007). We dispense therefore oral deny the petition the for review. and We legal

with

argument

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3