Thomas Desta v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920100621

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1577

THOMAS DESTA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted:

April 20, 2010

Decided:

June 21, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Allen Garfield, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID GARFIELD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Susan K. Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Linda Y. Cheng, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Desta, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his

applications for relief from removal. Desta 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). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude

that Desta fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, he cannot meet the Chen v. INS v. we

more stringent standard for withholding of removal. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 480 205 U.S. (4th 421, Cir. 430-32 1999) (citing

Cardoza-Fonseca,

(1987)).

Finally,

uphold the finding below that Desta failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal

Accordingly, dispense with oral

argument

because

2

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

PETITION DENIED

3