Johnson v. Mukasey , 272 F. App'x 269 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1622
AYABA JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-193-302)
Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: April 7, 2008
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph M. Kum, AMITY, KUM & SULEMAN, P.A., Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jem C. Sponzo, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ayaba Johnson, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting
and affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying her requests
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture.
Johnson 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 (1992).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Johnson
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 Johnson’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) [2000].” Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Johnson fails to show
that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
- 2 -
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Johnson fails 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) (2007). We find that Johnson
failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.
Finally, Johnson claims that errors in transcription and
translation violated her right to a full and fair hearing under the
Due Process Clause. As Johnson fails to establish that her rights
were “transgressed in such a way as is likely to impact the results
of the proceeding,” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-21 (4th Cir.
2002) (quoting Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 728 (9th Cir. 2000)),
we find that she is not entitled to relief on this claim.
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 -