Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0364-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Frank TRIANA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-1040.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 26, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 18, 2004.
    Roberto Matus, Law Offices of Roberto Matus, PA, Miami, Florida, for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Shelley R. Goad, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

James Frank Triana, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affhrning, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.

Triana asserts that his testimony was credible and corroborated, and was therefore sufficient to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Tria-na fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED