Oussene Agbere v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1832 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1832 OUSSENE LITTY AGBERE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 10, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kell Enow, ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Oussene Litty Agbere, a native and citizen of Togo, 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. Agbere challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility determination denying for asylum. eligibility To for obtain relief, reversal an of alien a 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 Agbere fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Agbere 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). 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.