Court Opinion

ID: 1017564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:06:42.264227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:21.796042
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-1371

KUNA NDIKUM,

                                                          Petitioner,

          versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

                                                          Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-272-173)

Submitted:   October 17, 2005             Decided:   November 1, 2005

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Paul J.
McNulty, United States Attorney, Joel E. Wilson, Assistant United
States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Kuna Ndikum, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions

for   review   of   an   order    of   the    Board   of   Immigration   Appeals

affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of his

applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

           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 Ndikum fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result.         Having failed to qualify for asylum, Ndikum

cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of

removal.   Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).

           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

                                       - 2 -