UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1227
RHUDES WOGHOMBONG NJOYA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-088-646)
Submitted: October 21, 2005 Decided: November 9, 2005
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacqueline E. Ngole, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle G. Latour, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, Evan Rikhye, Office of Legal Policy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rhudes Woghombong Njoya, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion, pursuant to
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2005), the immigration judge’s denial of
his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.* Njoya contends on appeal
that his evidence was, in fact, sufficient to establish his
eligibility for asylum.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for asylum, 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 Njoya fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result.
Nor can Njoya 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
*
Njoya did not challenge the denial of protection under the
Convention Against Torture before the Board. We therefore lack
jurisdiction to consider this argument on appeal. Asika v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125
S. Ct. 861 (2005).
- 2 -
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).
Finally, we reject Njoya’s claim that the Board erred in
using the summary affirmance procedure, as set forth in 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(e)(4) (2005), in this case. 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 -