Case Name: Jean Emmanuel FRANCIME, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-05
Citations: 326 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 08-2220
Parties: Jean Emmanuel FRANCIME, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 165–165

Head Matter:
Jean Emmanuel FRANCIME, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-2220.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2009.
Decided: June 5, 2009.
John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Robbin K Blaya, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jean Emmanuel Francime, a native and citizen of Haiti, 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.
Francime challenges the determination that he 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 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 Fran-cime fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Francime cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); INS v. Cardozcir-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.