Enow v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1451 ENOW BESEM ENOW, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A76-947-148) Submitted: March 15, 2004 Decided: April 14, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation Counsel, Deborah N. Misir, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Enow Besem Enow, 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, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Enow raises challenges to 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 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Enow fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that Enow 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 - 2 -