Nkuo v. Gonzales , 235 F. App'x 186 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1915
    JAMES SONG NKUO,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    No. 06-2262
    JAMES SONG NKUO,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A96-089-115)
    Submitted:   July 23, 2007                 Decided:   August 17, 2007
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
    Maryland, for Petitioner.   Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
    General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Patrick J. Glen,
    Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
    JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, James Song Nkuo, a native
    and citizen of Cameroon, seeks to challenge two decisions of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”).           In No. 06-1915, Nkuo
    challenges the Board’s order affirming the immigration judge’s
    decision   denying   his   applications   for   asylum,   withholding   of
    removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
    Because the Board affirmed the immigration judge’s order without
    opinion, we treat the immigration judge’s reasoning as that of the
    Board’s in our review.      
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.1
    (e)(4) (2007); Haoua v.
    Gonzales, 
    472 F.3d 227
    , 231 (4th Cir. 2007).
    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 Nkuo fails to show that the evidence compels a
    contrary result.     Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he
    seeks.
    Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
    Nkuo’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
    - 3 -
    of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3) [(2000)].”                   Camara v.
    Ashcroft, 
    378 F.3d 361
    , 367 (4th Cir. 2004).           Because Nkuo fails to
    show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
    standard for withholding of removal.
    Nkuo challenges the immigration judge’s denial of his
    claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We hold
    that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s finding
    that   Nkuo    failed    to   meet   the   standard   for    relief   under   the
    Convention Against Torture.          To secure 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) (2007).           We find that Nkuo failed to make
    the requisite showing before the immigration court.
    Finally, in No. 06-2262, Nkuo petitions for review of a
    decision      of   the   Board   denying   his   motion     to   reopen   removal
    proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and
    find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Nkuo’s
    motion to reopen.          See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (a) (2007); Barry v.
    Gonzales, 
    445 F.3d 741
    , 744 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 
    127 S. Ct. 1147
     (2007).
    Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review for the
    reasons stated by the Board.               We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    - 4 -
    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    PETITIONS DENIED
    - 5 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1915, 06-2262

Citation Numbers: 235 F. App'x 186

Judges: Hamilton, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Petitions, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 8/17/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023