Case Name: Orlando VILLARROEL-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-05
Citations: 117 F. App'x 897
Docket Number: No. 04-1684
Parties: Orlando VILLARROEL-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 897–898

Head Matter:
Orlando VILLARROEL-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-1684.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 10, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 5, 2005.
Marc Seguinot, Seguinot Law Firm, McLean, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Margaret K. Taylor, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Orlando Villarroel-Vargas, a native and citizen of Bolivia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, VillarroelVargas challenges the immigration judge's determination that he failed 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 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 Villarroel-Vargas fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks and 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
Villarroel-Vargas does not challenge the denial of withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture in his petition for review.