UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1915
JAMES SONG NKUO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-2262
JAMES SONG NKUO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-089-115)
Submitted: July 23, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Patrick J. Glen,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, James Song Nkuo, a native
and citizen of Cameroon, seeks to challenge two decisions of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). In No. 06-1915, Nkuo
challenges the Board’s order affirming the immigration judge’s
decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Because the Board affirmed the immigration judge’s order without
opinion, we treat the immigration judge’s reasoning as that of the
Board’s in our review. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2007); Haoua v.
Gonzales, 472 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 2007).
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 Nkuo fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he
seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Nkuo’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
- 3 -
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3) [(2000)].” Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Nkuo fails to
show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
Nkuo challenges the immigration judge’s denial of his
claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We hold
that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s finding
that Nkuo 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) (2007). We find that Nkuo failed to make
the requisite showing before the immigration court.
Finally, in No. 06-2262, Nkuo petitions for review of a
decision of the Board denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and
find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Nkuo’s
motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007); Barry v.
Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S.
Ct. 1147 (2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
- 4 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 5 -