UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2558
JOHN NTEHMBO TAZI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-228-978)
Submitted: July 6, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Michelle Gorden, Dennis J. Dimsey, Christopher C. Wang,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
John Ntehmbo Tazi, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding
from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
Tazi challenges the immigration judge’s determination
that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an
alien must show the evidence presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d
995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We
have reviewed the record and conclude Tazi fails to demonstrate
that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief Tazi seeks. Having failed to qualify for
asylum, Tazi 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 immigration judge’s finding that Tazi
failed to establish eligibility for protection under the CAT. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004).
- 2 -
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 -