Sidikou v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2325

ALIMATOU SIDIKOU,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 16, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander M. Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E.
Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Alimatou Sidikou, a native and citizen of Niger,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her

applications for relief from removal.

Sidikou first challenges the determination that she

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 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 Sidikou fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary

result.

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Sidikou cannot

meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold

the finding below that Sidikou failed to demonstrate that it is

more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to

Niger. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009).

We therefore deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3