UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1958
CHRISTINE MARIE K. NDANGA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-241-729)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: March 1, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann,
Assistant Director, Ethan B. Kanter, Senior Litigation Counsel,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christine Marie K. Ndanga, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of
asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). By prior order, we granted the Attorney
General’s motion to dismiss the petition for review to the extent
it sought review of the asylum claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
(2000) (providing no court has jurisdiction to review decision by
the Attorney General that asylum application is untimely). Ndanga
does argue that the Board erred in denying her withholding of
removal and protection under the CAT.
“To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must
show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of
[her] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316,
324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430
(1984)). Based on our review of the record and the decision of the
immigration judge, we find that substantial evidence supports the
Board’s decision that Ndanga did not meet this burden.
We also conclude that Ndanga has failed to prove she is
entitled to protection under the CAT by establishing it is more
likely than not that she would be subjected to torture upon her
return to Cameroon. Based on our review of the record, we find
- 2 -
that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Ndanga
failed to sustain her burden of proof. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2004) (“The burden of proof is on the
applicant . . . to establish that it is more likely than not
that . . . [s]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 -