Case ID: f-appx_429/html/0336-02.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

Fredis GONZALEZ-REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-1696.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 26, 2011.
    Decided: May 20, 2011.
    
      Anser Ahmad, Ahmad Law Offices, P.C., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Assistant Director, John J.W. Inkeles, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fredis Gonzalez-Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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.

Gonzalez-Reyes first challenges the determination that he failed to establish 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 factfinder 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 Gonzalez-Reyes fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Gonzalez-Reyes 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, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Gonzalez-Reyes failed to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2010).

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.