Musoke v. Gonzales , 138 F. App'x 555 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2472
ISAAC MUSOKE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-543-808)
Submitted: June 27, 2005 Decided: July 11, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Jode Segal, Jonathan H. Harrison, Carrie Valladares,
PRESTON GATES & ELLIS, L.L.P., Seattle, Washington, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Mary Anne F. Carnival, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, New York, New York, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Musoke, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s order
denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition
for review, Musoke contends that the Board and Immigration Judge
erred in denying his applications for withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
“To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must
show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of
his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13
(4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)).
To qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture, a
petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating 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) (2004).
Based on our review of the record, we find that Musoke has failed
to meet these standards.
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.
- 2 -
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -