UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2212
ALBERT TAKOU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-512-671)
Submitted: March 21, 2005 Decided: April 7, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Albert Takou, 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 order denying
his applications for asylum and withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Takou challenges the
immigration judge’s determination 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). We have
reviewed the evidence of record and conclude Takou fails to show
that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Takou’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of
proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even
though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who
is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Takou fails to show he is
eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
- 2 -
withholding of removal. Because Takou did not specifically
challenge on appeal to the Board the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture, review of that claim is waived.
Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 544 (4th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We grant
the Government’s motion to strike pages 264-296 of Takou’s brief.
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 -