UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2105
BELTRAN NYAMENJO NJOFANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-224-694)
Submitted: May 6, 2005 Decided: June 15, 2005
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ignatius Udeani, UDEANI & ASSOCIATES, Ltd., Bloomington, Minnesota,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
James Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Uttam Dhillon, Associate
Deputy Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Beltran Nyamenjo Njofang, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(Board) order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.*
We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so
compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483-84 (1992)). We have reviewed the evidence of record, the
immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order and find
substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Njofang failed to
establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future
persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on
the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. at 483 (same).
Nor can Njofang show that he 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
*
Njofang does not petition for review from that part of the
order that denied protection under the Convention Against Torture.
- 2 -
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we deny Njofang’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 -