Case Name: Aminetou Mint Wehbine SOW MINT A. VALL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-14
Citations: 322 F. App'x 287
Docket Number: No. 08-1808
Parties: Aminetou Mint Wehbine SOW MINT A. VALL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 322
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
Aminetou Mint Wehbine SOW MINT A. VALL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1808.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 27, 2009.
Decided: April 14, 2009.
Kell Enow, Enow & Patcha, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Joseph A. O’Connell, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aminetou Mint Wehbine Sow Mint A. Vail, a native and citizen of Mauritania, 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.
Sow Mint A. Vail 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 Sow Mint A. Vail fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Sow Mint A. Vail cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); INS v. Cardozar-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.