Case ID: f-appx_313/html/0624-01.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

Mary Chiu FEBEH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-1613.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 29, 2009.
    Decided: Feb. 26, 2009.
    Kell Enow, Enow & Patcha, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Jem C. Sponzo, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mary Chiu Febeh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Febeh first challenges the determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Febeh fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Febeh’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). Because Febeh failed to show that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. For the same reasons, we also uphold the denial of Febeh’s request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.

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.