UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2200
SHABANI MUTOMBO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-496-170)
Submitted: August 9, 2004 Decided: August 25, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
P. Chinedu Nwaneri, NWANERI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C., St. Paul,
Minnesota, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior Litigation Counsel, Thomas H.
Tousley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shabani Mutombo, a native and citizen of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming an immigration
judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection pursuant to Article 3 of the United
Nations’ Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed
below, we deny the petition for review.
Mutombo challenges the Board’s finding that he failed to
demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution. The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is
conclusive “unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of
discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We have reviewed
the immigration judge’s decision and the administrative record and
find that the record supports the Board’s conclusion that Mutombo
failed to establish his eligibility for asylum on a protected
ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating that the burden
of proof is on the alien to establish his eligibility for asylum);
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). As the Board’s
decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot
grant the relief that Mutombo seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Mutombo’s
application for withholding of removal. The standard for
withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting
- 2 -
asylum. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To
qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate
“a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Mutombo fails to show that he is
eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
Finally, we conclude that Mutombo has failed to prove
that it is more likely than not that he would be subjected to
torture upon his return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in
violation of the Convention Against Torture. Based on our review
of the record, we find that Mutombo failed to show a “clear
probability of persecution” or to show that it is “more likely than
not” that he would face torture if returned to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003)
(stating that to qualify for protection under the Convention
Against Torture, an alien must show “it is more likely than not
that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country
of removal”).
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 -