Leslie Ebot Jones v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 1992 . We have reviewed the evidence of record

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1175
LESLIE EBOT JONES,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-512-833)
Submitted: September 20, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J.
Scadron, Assistant Director, Leslie McKay, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* Because petitioner appeals only her asylum claim, we do not
consider her applications for withholding of removal or protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
PER CURIAM:
Leslie Ebot Jones, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming, without opinion, the Immigration Judge’s denial
of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. * As discussed
below, we deny the petition for review.
Jones asserts that she established her eligibility for
asylum by showing past persecution and a well-founded fear of
future persecution. 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 Jones fails to make the
requisite showing.
We accordingly 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 of 2 --