Aye Phyu v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-1346 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1346 AYE AYE PHYU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 15, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aye Aye Phyu, Petitioner Pro Se. Melody A. Brukiewa, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Baltimore, Maryland; Kiley L. Kane, Tyrone Sojourner, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Aye Aye Phyu, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge s denial of her applications for relief from removal. Phyu first challenges the determination failed to establish eligibility for asylum. of a determination denying eligibility for that she 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 Phyu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Phyu 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 Phyu failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Burma. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because 2 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 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.