Case Name: Kofi AMAKONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-17
Citations: 378 F. App'x 372
Docket Number: No. 09-1494
Parties: Kofi AMAKONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 378
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
Kofi AMAKONA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-1494.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 18, 2010.
Decided: May 17, 2010.
Kofi Amakona, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Theo Nickerson, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kofi Amakona, a native and citizen of Ghana, 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.
Amakona challenges the determination that he failed to estabhsh 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 fact-finder 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 Ama-kona fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Amakona 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 Amakona did not demonstrate eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), (3) (2009).
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.