Aminetou Mint Wehbine Sow Mint A. Vall v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

08-1808Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit14.04.2009

Gesamter Gesetzestext

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1808
AMINETOU MINT WEHBINE SOW MINT A. VALL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 27, 2009 Decided: April 14, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General,
Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Joseph A. O’Connell,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Aminetou Mint Wehbine Sow Mint A. Vall, a native and
citizen of Mauritania, 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.
Sow Mint A. Vall 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 Sow Mint A. Vall fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Sow Mint
A. Vall 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).
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

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.