UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1447
CLETUS FONGOH,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-610-644)
Submitted: February 4, 2008 Decided: February 14, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Mona Maria Yousif, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cletus Fongoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision, which denied his requests for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Fongoh first contends that the Board erred in concluding
that he failed to appeal the immigration judge’s denial of his
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Based on our
review of the record, we find that this claim lacks merit. In his
Notice of Appeal before the Board, Fongoh simply stated that “the
record of proceedings will not support the findings of the
Immigration Judge that resulted in the denial of [his] application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under Article III of
the Convention Against Torture.” He failed to elaborate or
otherwise explain how the immigration judge’s findings were
inadequate or unsupported by the record. We therefore agree with
the Board that this general assertion of error, coupled with his
failure to raise these claims in his brief before the Board, was
insufficient to preserve the asylum and withholding claims for
review on appeal.
Turning to Fongoh’s remaining claim, we find that
substantial evidence supports the finding that he failed to meet
the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To
- 2 -
obtain 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 Fongoh failed to make the requisite showing before the
immigration court. We further find that the immigration judge
properly analyzed Fongoh’s claim as required by our decision in
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004).
We therefore 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 -