UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1781
ELISE GUY TCHUENKAM KOM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-220-860)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 25, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, John J.
Powers, III, Steven J. Mintz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Elise Guy Tchuenkam Kom, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT).
We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so
compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483-84 (1992)). We have reviewed the administrative record, the
immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order and find
substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Kom failed to
establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future
persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on
the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. at 483 (same).
Next, we uphold the Board’s denial of Kom’s application
for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of
removal 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 probability of persecution.
- 2 -
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Kom failed to
establish refugee status, he cannot satisfy the higher standard
necessary for withholding.
Furthermore, we conclude substantial evidence supports
the determination that Kom did not establish it was more likely
than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cameroon, see 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004), and thus, that Kom’s petition for
protection under the CAT was properly denied.
Accordingly, we deny Kom’s 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 -