UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1631
ELSIE INA DOUE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-290-380)
Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: January 6, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jay S. Marks, MARKS & KATZ, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina; 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Elsie Ina Doue, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her requests
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture, and denying her motion to remand.
In her petition for review, Doue challenges the
determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for
asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Doue fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she
seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Doue’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 Doue fails to show that she
- 2 -
is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Doue 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 Doue failed to make
the requisite showing before the immigration court.
Finally, we find that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in finding that Doue failed to meet the requirements for
filing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as set forth in
Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988). We therefore
uphold the Board’s denial of Doue’s motion to remand.
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 -