UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1340
OSCAR HUMBERTO ESCOBAR SUAREZ,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-496-328)
Submitted: June 16, 2004 Decided: July 7, 2004
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oscar Humberto Escobar Suarez, Petitioner Pro Se. Michele Yvette
Francis Sarko, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Gloria Minor, Michelle
Elizabeth Gorden, Daniel Eric Goldman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Oscar Humberto Escobar Suarez, a native and citizen of
Columbia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing the appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 Suarez 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) (2004) (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 denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.
We deny Suarez’s 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.
- 2 -
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -