Seleth Selebangue v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1889 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1889 SELETH GLANGH TANGUY SELEBANGUE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 10, 2009 Decided: April 13, 2009 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Seleth Glangh Tanguy Selebangue, Petitioner Pro Balasquide, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Virginia, for Respondent. Se. Javier Arlington, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Seleth Glangh Tanguy Selebangue, a native and citizen of the Central African Republic, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge s denial of his applications for relief from removal. Selebangue first challenges the determination that he 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 of persecution. (1992). that INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude Selebangue contrary fails result. Selebangue cannot to show Having meet withholding of removal. that failed the more the to 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). We further uphold the finding that Selebangue failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to the Central African Republic. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). 8 C.F.R. Finally, we uphold the determination below that Selebangue filed a frivolous asylum application. 2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2008); Matter of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151 (B.I.A. 2007). We dispense therefore with oral deny argument the petition because 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.