Case ID: f-appx_419/html/0321-01.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

Jessica Sussette ILLESCAS-DIAZ, a/k/a Yesica Suset Illescas-Dias, a/k/a Jessica Sussette Illescas Dias, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-1780.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 28, 2011.
    Decided: March 21, 2011.
    Linda A. Dominguez, L.A. Dominguez Law, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rosarme M. Perry, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jessica Sussette Illescas-Diaz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for relief from removal.

Illescas-Diaz challenges the determination that she 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 Illescas-Diaz fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Illescas-Diaz 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).

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.