UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2010
MARVEL JOHNSON PRINCE OYIBO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-235-664)
Submitted: February 25, 2005 Decided: April 7, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rashann R. Duvall, Patricia L. Stasco, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Arnold C. Celnicker, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Marvel Johnson Prince Oyibo, a native and citizen of
Nigeria, 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,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. In his petition for review, Oyibo challenges the
immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his
eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination
denying eligibility for asylum, 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 that Oyibo fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief he seeks.
Nor can Oyibo show that he is entitled to withholding of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000). “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).
- 2 -
Oyibo next contends that the immigration judge erred in
denying his claim for protection under the Convention Against
Torture. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude
that Oyibo did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect
to this claim because he did not present it in his appeal to the
Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362
F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 861
(2005).
Accordingly, we deny Oyibo’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 -