Case ID: f-appx_313/html/0623-01.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

Gevorg HOVHANNISYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Respondent.
    No. 08-2021.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 17, 2009.
    Decided: Feb. 26, 2009.
    Gevorg Hovhannisyan, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C.; Eric H. Holder, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Washington, D.C.; George William Mau-gans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Jem Colleen Sponzo, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gevorg Hovhannisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, 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.

Hovhannisyan 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 Hovhannisyan fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Hovhannisyan 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.