UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1955
DORICOD UFANI EPIE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-479-493)
Submitted: April 23, 2004 Decided: May 6, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann,
Assistant Director, Lisa M. Arnold, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Doricod Ufani Epie, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review from 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.
On appeal, Epie raises challenges to the immigration
judge’s 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). Administrative findings of
fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2000). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that
Epie fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief Epie seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Epie’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for withholding of
removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of
persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987).
To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant
- 2 -
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) (2003). Based on our review of the
record, we find that Epie has failed to meet either one of these
standards.
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 -