Alimatou Sidikou v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-2325 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2325 ALIMATOU SIDIKOU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 16, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander M. Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alimatou Sidikou, a native and citizen of Niger, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge s denial of her that she applications for relief from removal. Sidikou first challenges the determination failed to establish eligibility for asylum. of a determination denying eligibility for To obtain reversal 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. (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Sidikou fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Sidikou cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. 195 INS, F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 1999); INS v. Finally, we uphold the finding below that Sidikou failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Niger. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). We dispense therefore with oral deny argument the petition because 2 the for review. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3

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.