UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2054
KOKOU MAGBEDE TOUGNON,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-263-499)
Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 12, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Julia A.
Jones, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kokou Magbede Tougnon, a native and citizen of Togo,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
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 that Tougnon fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Tougnon
cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of
removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).
We also uphold the IJ’s finding that Tougnon failed to
establish eligibility for protection under the Convention Against
Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). Finally, we reject
Tougnon’s claim that he was denied due process by the Board’s use
of its summary affirmance procedure to affirm the decision of the
IJ. See Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 280-83 (4th
Cir. 2004).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis and 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 -