Njofang v. Gonzales , 133 F. App'x 900 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-2105
    BELTRAN NYAMENJO NJOFANG,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A95-224-694)
    Submitted:   May 6, 2005                   Decided:   June 15, 2005
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ignatius Udeani, UDEANI & ASSOCIATES, Ltd., Bloomington, Minnesota,
    for Petitioner.    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
    James Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Uttam Dhillon, Associate
    Deputy Attorney General, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Beltran   Nyamenjo   Njofang,   a   native   and   citizen   of
    Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    (Board) order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and
    protection under the Convention Against Torture.*
    We will reverse the Board 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) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    ,
    483-84 (1992)).     We have reviewed the evidence of record, the
    immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order and find
    substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Njofang failed to
    establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future
    persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum.        See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on
    the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. at 483
     (same).
    Nor can Njofang show that he was entitled to withholding
    of removal under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (b)(3) (2000). “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
    *
    Njofang does not petition for review from that part of the
    order that denied protection under the Convention Against Torture.
    - 2 -
    of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 
    378 F.3d 361
    , 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
    Accordingly, we deny Njofang’s 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-2105

Citation Numbers: 133 F. App'x 900

Judges: King, Luttig, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 6/15/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023