Seleth Glangh Tanguy Selebangue v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1889
SELETH GLANGH TANGUY SELEBANGUE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 10, 2009 Decided: April 13, 2009
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Seleth Glangh Tanguy Selebangue, Petitioner Pro Se. Javier
Balasquide, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Arlington,
Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Seleth Glangh Tanguy Selebangue, a native and citizen
of the Central African Republic, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal
from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for
relief from removal.
Selebangue 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 Selebangue fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum,
Selebangue 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).
We further uphold the finding that Selebangue failed to
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured if removed to the Central African Republic. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Finally, we uphold the determination
below that Selebangue filed a frivolous asylum application. See
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2008); Matter
of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151 (B.I.A. 2007).
We therefore 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

-- 3 of 3 --