UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2089
ARMAND SERGE THEINKEU-DONFACK,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-923-045)
Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: May 11, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Gregory Welsh, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Armand Serge Theinkeu-Donfack, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, 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, Theinkeu-Donfack challenges
the 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 Theinkeu-Donfack 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 Theinkeu-Donfack’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 Theinkeu-Donfack failed to
- 2 -
show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Theinkeu-Donfack failed 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) (2006). We find
that Theinkeu-Donfack failed to make the requisite showing before
the immigration court.
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 -