UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2002
DIEUDONNE NGANYANG TCHABONG; KELLIE TCHOUYA
LEUKEU; MERCURE NGANYANG TCHABONG; SATURNE
NGAYANG TCHABONG; NATHALIE NGANYANG TCHABONG,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-216-461; A95-216-462; A95-216-463; A95-216-464; A95-
216-465)
Submitted: April 30, 2007 Decided: May 17, 2007
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kim-Bun Thomas Li, LI, LATSEY & GUITERMAN, PLLC, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
James Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, OFFICE
OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dieudonne Nganyang Tchabong, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, and dependent family members Nathalie Nganyang Tchabong,
Kellie Tchouya Leukeu, Mercure Nganyang Tchabong, and Saturne
Nganyang Tchabong, petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of
Tchabong’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
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
regarding asylum and conclude that Tchabong fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15 (2006).
In addition, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that
Tchabong failed to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v.
INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding that Tchabong
failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would
be tortured if removed to Cameroon. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)
(2006).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -