UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2551
SILAS NJAU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-095-205)
Submitted: August 26, 2005 Decided: September 9, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel D. Akpan, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Silas Njau, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Njau 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 Njau fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Njau’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 Njau fails to show that he
- 2 -
is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Njau 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) (2005). We find that Njau failed to make
the requisite showing below.
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 -