Marcelino Papa v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-1493 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1493 MARCELINO SULEKOPA PAPA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.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, 2010 Decided: December 13, 2010 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Payne, LEE & ASSOCIATES, College Park, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Briena L. Strippoli, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Marcelino Equatorial Board of Guineau, Sulekopa Papa, petitions Immigration Appeals a for native review dismissing and of an his citizen order of the from appeal of the Immigration Judge s denial of his applications for relief from removal. Papa 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 Papa fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, INS v. Finally, we 195 F.3d Cardoza-Fonseca, 198, 480 205 U.S. (4th Cir. 421, 430-32 1999) (citing (1987)). uphold the finding below that Papa failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Equatorial Guineau. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Accordingly, dispense with oral we 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.