Alimatou Sidikou v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920091016

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2325

ALIMATOU SIDIKOU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted:

September 29, 2009

Decided:

October 16, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander M. Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Alimatou Sidikou, a native and citizen of Niger,

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. Sidikou first challenges the determination that she

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). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude

that Sidikou fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Sidikou 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).

Finally, we uphold

the finding below that Sidikou failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Niger. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). We dispense therefore oral deny the petition the for review. and We legal

with

argument

because

facts

2

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

PETITION DENIED

3