Mbuno v. Gonzales , 205 F. App'x 153 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2325
LEO BOBVALLA MBUNO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-193-805)
Submitted: August 18, 2006 Decided: October 12, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
James A. Hunolt, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Samuel D. Blesi,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Leo Bobvalla Mbuno, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision
denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Mbuno challenges the
determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for
asylum. 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 Mbuno fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he
seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Mbuno’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). Because Mbuno fails to show that he
- 2 -
is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Mbuno 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) (2006). We find that Mbuno failed to make
the requisite showing.
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 -