Case Name: Andre Marie SONGUE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-11
Citations: 82 F. App'x 818
Docket Number: No. 03-1456
Parties: Andre Marie SONGUE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 818–819

Head Matter:
Andre Marie SONGUE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 03-1456.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2003.
Decided Dec. 11, 2003.
Allan Ebert, Law Offices of Allan Ebert, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Thomas C. Lederman, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
UNPUBLISHED
PER CURIAM.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Andre Marie Songue, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming the immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
On appeal, Songue raises challenges to the Board's and immigration judge's determinations 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, 488-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Songue fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that Songue seeks.
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