Kamga v. Mukasey , 276 F. App'x 300 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1775
GILBERT WAMBO FRANCIS KAMGA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-646-050)
Submitted: April 7, 2008 Decided: May 6, 2008
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Aimee J. Frederickson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gilbert Wambo Francis Kamga, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming without opinion the
immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Because the Board affirmed the immigration judge’s ruling
without opinion, we review the immigration judge’s decision as the
final agency determination. Lin-Jian v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 182,
187 (4th Cir. 2007).
Kamga challenges the immigration judge’s finding that his
testimony was not credible and that he otherwise failed to meet his
burden of proving his eligibility for asylum. We will reverse this
decision only if the evidence “was so compelling that no reasonable
fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution,”
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted), and we uphold a negative
credibility determination if it is supported by substantial
evidence. Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision. We find that substantial evidence
supports the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding and
the ruling that Kamga failed to establish past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution, as necessary to establish
- 2 -
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating
that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility
for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)
(same). Moreover, as Kamga cannot sustain his burden on the asylum
claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to withholding of
removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004)
(“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.A.]
§ 1231(b)(3) [(West 2005)].”).
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Kamga is not entitled to relief under the Convention
Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must
establish “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 the immigration judge applied the
proper standard to assess the evidence, and Kamga 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 -