Case ID: f-appx_158/html/0496-01.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

Patrick KAMGANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
    No. 05-1429.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 12, 2005.
    Decided Dec. 28, 2005.
    Jacqueline E. Ngole, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Patrick Kamgang, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

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 Kamgang fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Kamgang cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); INS v. Cardozo-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). In addition, we uphold the IJ’s finding that Kamgang failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Finally, in light of the above conclusions, we reject Kamgang’s claim that the Board violated immigration regulations in using the affirmance without opinion procedure in this case.

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