UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2220
ANTHONY ELOR OKOSUN,
Petitioner,
versus
TOM RIDGE; RICHARD CATERISANO; ALBERTO R.
GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-469-818)
Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 25, 2005
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Louis M. Fischer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Anthony Elor Okosun, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming 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, Okosun challenges the
immigration judge’s determination that 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 that Okosun 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
Okosun’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 Okosun fails to show that
- 2 -
he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that Okosun fails to meet the standard for
relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such
relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than
not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We find
that Okosun fails to make the requisite showing.
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 -