UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1275
NGWOSUNGA VIVIAN FOMBOH,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-321-775)
Submitted: November 27, 2006 Decided: January 25, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW AND PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristin K. Edison,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ngwosunga Vivian Fomboh petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the
immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
Fomboh challenges the Board’s finding that her testimony
was not credible and that she otherwise failed to meet her burden
of proving her eligibility 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
quotation marks and citations omitted), and uphold credibility
determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence.
Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
Board’s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Fomboh failed to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution as 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
Fomboh cannot sustain her burden on the asylum claim, she cannot
- 2 -
establish her entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“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).”).
Fomboh also alleges that the Board erred in denying her
protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for
this protection, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of
demonstrating 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). Fomboh failed to make such a
showing.
Accordingly, we deny Fomboh’s 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 -