UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1787
ROSE BOKENG NKWANYUO,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-602-491)
Submitted: April 14, 2008 Decided: May 6, 2008
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oti W. Nwosu, THE LAW OFFICE OF OTI W. NWOSU, Arlington, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gary J.
Newkirk, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rose Bokeng Nkwanyuo, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of
her applications for relief from removal.
Nkwanyuo first challenges the determination that she
failed to establish eligibility for asylum. 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 Nkwanyuo fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to
qualify for asylum, Nkwanyuo cannot meet the more stringent
standard 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 below that Nkwanyuo failed
to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured if removed to Cameroon. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2007).
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
- 2 -