Court Opinion

ID: 1020837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:57:12.133784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:28.420092
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-1205

GEORGE FORBA NWANA,

                                                          Petitioner,

          versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,

                                                          Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-626-502)

Submitted:   September 22, 2006           Decided:   October 23, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Nkwenti, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter
D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Francesca U. Tamami, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           George Forba Nwana, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying his

requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under

the Convention Against Torture.

           In    his    petition   for   review,     Nwana    challenges    the

determination that he failed to establish his 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 (1992).       We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Nwana fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result.       Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he

seeks.

           Additionally, we uphold the denial of Nwana’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 Nwana fails to show that he

                                    - 2 -
is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal.

          We also find that substantial evidence supports the

finding that Nwana failed to meet the standard for relief under the

Convention Against Torture.     To obtain such relief, an applicant

must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she

would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).      We find that Nwana failed to make

the requisite showing before the immigration court.

          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

                                 - 3 -