UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1937
HENRI THOKA; THERESE DJUNKEU; I.C.P.T.,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-474-539; A78-743-982; A78-743-983)
Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Emily N. Glatfelter, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henri Thoka, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.*
Thoka challenges the Board’s determination that he failed
to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of an
adverse eligibility determination, 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 it does not
compel a contrary result.
Similarly, as Thoka does not qualify for asylum, he is
ineligible for 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
*
Thoka’s wife, Therese Djunkeu, and his daughter, I.C.P.T.,
are derivative petitioners. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (West
2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2006). Both are natives and citizens
of Cameroon.
- 2 -
removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3) [(2000)].” Camara, 378 F.3d
at 367.
Finally, we hold that substantial evidence supports the
Board’s finding that Thoka failed to meet the standard for relief
under the Convention Against Torture. To secure 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 Thoka
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 -