Seleth Selebangue v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090413

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1889 SELETH GLANGH TANGUY SELEBANGUE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Javier Arlington, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?