Naphazi Prince v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A099-547-912 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998611121].. [10-2141]

Appeal: 10-2141

Document: 23

Date Filed: 06/14/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2141

PRINCE NAPHAZI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

May 18, 2011

Decided:

June 14, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander
M.
Chanthunya,
Silver
Spring,
Maryland,
for
Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P.
Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffery R. Leist, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-2141

Document: 23

Date Filed: 06/14/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Prince

Naphazi,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Zimbabwe,

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.
Naphazi

first

challenges

the

determination

failed to establish eligibility for asylum.
of

a

determination

denying

eligibility

for

that

he

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 Naphazi fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result.

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Naphazi 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).
Accordingly,
dispense

with

oral

we

deny

argument

the

petition

because

the

for
facts

review.
and

We
legal

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

PETITION DENIED

2