Case ID: f-appx_299/html/0271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Florence N. GWANYALLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-1296.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 26, 2008.
    Decided: Oct. 31, 2008.
    Sopo Ngwa, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Glen T. Jaeger, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Florence N. Gwanyalla, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for relief from removal.

Gwanyalla first challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility 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.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Gwanyalla fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Gwanyalla 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, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Gwanyalla failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.