Nkandu v. Gonzales , 177 F. App'x 295 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1966
BUELA NTOKO MARIE JULIE NKANDU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-185-280)
Submitted: March 24, 2006 Decided: April 21, 2006
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Kristine L. Sendek-Smith,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Buela Ntoko Marie Julie Nkandu, a native and citizen of
the Democratic Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal
from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
In her petition for review, Nkandu 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 Nkandu 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 Nkandu’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). As Nkandu fails to show that she is
- 2 -
eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
Board’s finding that Nkandu 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) (2005). We find that Nkandu
failed to make the requisite showing before the Board.
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 -