Suarez v. Ashcroft, (4th Cir. 2004)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1340 OSCAR HUMBERTO ESCOBAR SUAREZ, Petitioner, versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-496-328)

Submitted: June 16, 2004 Decided: July 7, 2004

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oscar Humberto Escobar Suarez, Petitioner Pro Se. Michele Yvette

Francis Sarko, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Gloria Minor, Michelle

Elizabeth Gorden, Daniel Eric Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: Oscar Humberto Escobar Suarez, a native and citizen of Columbia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing the appeal from the

immigration judgeÂ’s decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and wi thholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the administrative record, the

BoardÂ’s order and the immigration judgeÂ’s decision, and find

substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Suarez failed to

establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future

persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on

the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias

, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so compelling that no

reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution.’” Rusu v. INS

, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Elias-Zacarias

, 502 U.S. at 483-84). We do not find the record so compelling as to reverse the Board. We further find no

error in the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny SuarezÂ’s 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.

- 3 - PETITION DENIED

---