UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1270
MAURICE CHOUPOU KENLAK,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-703-35)
Submitted: January 28, 2004 Decided: February 12, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part, denied in part, by unpublished per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,
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jamie M. Dowd, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Maurice Choupou Kenlak,1 a native and citizen of
Cameroon, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his
application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have
reviewed the administrative record and the opinion of the Board and
find that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Kenlak
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution in a protected category, as necessary to qualify
for relief from deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994);2
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (2003). Thus, the record supports the
Board’s conclusion that Kenlak failed to establish eligibility for
asylum.
Additionally, we uphold the Board’s denial of Kenlak’s
application for withholding of deportation. The standard for
receiving withholding of deportation is “more stringent than that
for asylum eligibility.” Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.
1999). An applicant for withholding must demonstrate a clear
1
The case of Kenlak’s wife, Victorine M. Tange, was
consolidated with his below. Kenlak applied for asylum or
withholding of deportation with Tange listed as a dependant; both
applied for suspension of deportation or voluntary departure.
2
Although 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-128, 110 Stat. 3009, effective April 1,
1997, because this case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA
was passed, § 1105a(a)(4) is applicable here under the terms of the
transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA.
- 2 -
probability of persecution. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430 (1987). As Kenlak has failed to establish refugee status, he
cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of deportation.
Kenlak seeks to appeal the Board’s decision denying
suspension of deportation under former INA § 244(a), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1254(a) (1994). Section 309(c)(4)(E) of the transitional rules
provides that “there shall be no appeal of any discretionary
decision under section . . . 244.” This court “may review all
aspects of the BIA’s decision except those that are committed to
its discretion by law.” Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir.
2001). Any “decision with respect to whether extreme hardship is
established is a discretionary one [that the Court] may not
review.” Id. Here, the immigration judge denied the application
for suspension of deportation based on his finding that Kenlak
failed to demonstrate extreme hardship; the Board affirmed on that
ground. Thus, the decision is not reviewable.
Finally, Kenlak challenges the Board’s denial of his
motion to remand for consideration under the Convention Against
Torture. This court reviews the Board’s denial of a motion to
remand for abuse of discretion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993
(9th Cir. 2003). The Board abuses its discretion when it “fails to
offer a reasoned explanation for its decision, distorts or
disregards important aspects of the alien’s claim.” Id. (internal
- 3 -
quotation omitted). We conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in this case.
Accordingly, Kenlak’s petition for review is dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction as to the suspension of deportation claim,
and denied as to the denial of asylum, withholding, and motion to
remand. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART
- 4 -