Vakhob Valiyevich Abdullayev v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1669
VAKHOB VALIYEVICH ABDULLAYEV,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vakhob Valiyevich Abdullayev, Petitioner Pro Se. George William
Maugans, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland; William Charles Peachey, Tyrone Sojourner, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Vakhob Valiyevich Abdullayev, a native and citizen of
Uzbekistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of
his applications for relief from removal.
Abdullayev first challenges the determination that he
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 Abdullayev fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum,
Abdullayev 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 Abdullayev failed to
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured if removed to Uzbekistan. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)
(2009).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --