Case ID: f-appx_185/html/0268-01.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

Abraham SANGARY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 05-2271.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 31, 2006.
    Decided: June 14, 2006.
    Abraham Sangary, Petitioner Pro Se. Larry Patrick Cote, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Abraham Mohamed Sangary, a native and citizen of Liberia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

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, 488-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Sangary fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Sangary cannot meet the higher standard to qualify 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). In addition, we uphold the IJ’s finding that Sangary failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Liberia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).

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.