Rehearing granted, September 2, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2524
BETTY EBIAYA ENOW,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-280-895)
Submitted: September 24, 2004 Decided: October 14, 2004
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Betty Ebiaya Enow, Petitioner Pro Se. George William Maugans, III,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland;
Carol Federighi, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Betty Ebiaya Enow, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under
the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture, and voluntary
departure. We deny the petition for review.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for asylum relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]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). See also Blanco de
Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 284 (4th Cir. 2004)
(immigration judge’s denial of asylum upheld “unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”).
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 Enow’s brief and conclude that she fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief Enow seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Enow’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for withholding of
- 2 -
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
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 Enow 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 -