Vakhob Valiyevich Abdullayev v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-1669 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1669 VAKHOB VALIYEVICH ABDULLAYEV, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vakhob Valiyevich Abdullayev, Petitioner Pro Se. George William Maugans, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; William Charles Peachey, Tyrone Sojourner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Vakhob Valiyevich Abdullayev, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, 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. Abdullayev 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 Abdullayev contrary fails result. Abdullayev 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). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Abdullayev failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Uzbekistan. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). 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.