Gesper Paul v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-1061 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1061 GESPER PAUL, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 18, 2009 Decided: December 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gesper Paul, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge s denial of his applications for relief from removal. Paul first challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination relief, denying eligibility for 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 Paul fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Paul 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). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Paul failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Haiti. 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.