UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1998
YERVAND HARUTYUNYAN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-981-305)
Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: May 25, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Norah
Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Frances M. McLaughlin,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yervand Harutyunyan, a native and citizen of Armenia,
petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the Immigration
Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
On appeal, Harutyunyan 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 Harutyunyan fails
to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly,
we cannot grant the relief Harutyunyan seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Harutyunyan’s applications for withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for
withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear
probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430-31 (1987). To obtain relief under the Convention Against
Torture, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than
not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
- 2 -
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Based on
our review of the record, we find that Harutyunyan has failed to
meet either one of these standards.
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
- 3 -