Vakhob Valiyevich Abdullayev v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920100127

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1669

VAKHOB VALIYEVICH ABDULLAYEV, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted:

January 13, 2010

Decided:

January 27, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vakhob Valiyevich Abdullayev, Petitioner Pro Se. George William Maugans, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; William Charles Peachey, Tyrone Sojourner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Vakhob Valiyevich Abdullayev, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, 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. Abdullayev 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

Abdullayev result.

contrary Abdullayev

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

argument

because

2

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

PETITION DENIED

3