Gevorg Hovhannisyan v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-2021 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2021 GEVORG HOVHANNISYAN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 17, 2009 Decided: February 26, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gevorg Hovhannisyan, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C.; Eric H. Holder, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Washington, D.C.; George William Maugans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Jem Colleen Sponzo, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gevorg Hovhannisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge s denial of his that he applications for relief from removal. Hovhannisyan challenges the determination failed to establish eligibility for asylum. of a determination denying eligibility To obtain reversal 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 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 of persecution. (1992). that We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude Hovhannisyan contrary fails result. Hovhannisyan cannot to Having meet withholding of removal. show that failed the the to more evidence qualify stringent compels for a asylum, standard for Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.