Traore v. Gonzales
Traore v. Gonzales
Opinion
Ibriam Traore and Sylla Mariam, both natives and citizens of Cote d’Ivoire, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Traore’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Traore fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Traore 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, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding that Traore failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cote d’Ivoire. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2007).
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.