UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1942
SERAPHINE TCHAMABE TCHOKONTE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-255-648)
Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: April 15, 2005
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Marc E. Gordon, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Seraphine Tchamabe Tchokonte, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the immigration
judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and
voluntary departure.* The immigration judge found Tchokonte’s
asylum application to be frivolous under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6)
(2000), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2004), and Tchokonte seeks to challenge
that ruling as well.
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 Tchokonte fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly we cannot grant the relief that she
seeks. We further uphold the immigration judge’s determination
*
Tchokonte raises no claim on appeal regarding the Convention
Against Torture. Therefore, she has abandoned this claim. See
United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004);
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999). Although Tchokonte seeks to challenge the denial of
voluntary departure, “a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to
entertain a request to reinstate voluntary departure.” Ngarurih v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 193 (4th Cir. 2004).
- 2 -
that Tchokonte’s asylum application was frivolous. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.20 (2004).
Nor can Tchokonte show that she was 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).
We find Tchokonte’s due process claims to be without
merit. We therefore 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 -