UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2025
MIRABEL KIEN NGUTI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-895-532)
Submitted: May 26, 2006 Decided: June 13, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Eric W.
Marsteller, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mirabel Kien Nguti, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s
denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.* Because the
Board affirmed under its streamlined process, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(e)(4) (2006), the immigration judge's decision is the
final agency determination. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361,
366 (4th Cir. 2004).
Nguti challenges the immigration judge’s finding that her
testimony was not credible, and that she otherwise failed to meet
her burden of proof to qualify for asylum. We will reverse this
decision only if the evidence “was so compelling that no reasonable
fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). We uphold credibility
determinations of the immigration judge if they are supported by
substantial evidence. See Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538
(4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
*
Nguti withdrew her Convention Against Torture claim before
the immigration judge.
- 2 -
supports the immigration judge’s credibility finding, as well as
his conclusion that Nguti failed to establish the past persecution
or well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating
that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility
for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)
(same). Moreover, as Nguti cannot sustain her burden on the asylum
claim, she cannot establish her entitlement to withholding of
removal. See Camara, 378 F.3d at 367 (“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).”).
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 -