UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2041
EUGENE ALLEN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-710-258)
Submitted: April 19, 2004 Decided: June 4, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael
S. Raab, Colette G. Matzzie, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eugene Allen, a native and citizen of Sierre Leone,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order affirming the immigration judge’s oral decision denying
Allen’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal and
withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed
the administrative record, the Board’s order, and the immigration
judge’s decision and find substantial evidence supports the
conclusion that Allen failed to establish the past persecution or
well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating
that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility
for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)
(same). We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so
compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84).
We do not find the record so compelling as to reverse the Board.
We further find no error in the immigration judge’s
application of the law. In addition, we find the Board did not
violate Allen’s right to due process.
We deny Allen’s petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -