UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1518
EVODIA KAH TABOH,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 17, 2008 Decided: July 14, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Nkwenti, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Barry J. Pettinato,
Assistant Director, Kristin A. Moresi, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Evodia Kah Taboh, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s order finding her removable and denying her applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.
We have reviewed the administrative record, the
immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s affirmance thereof,
and find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that
Taboh failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution
and a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating
that burden of proof is on alien to establish eligibility for
asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same).
Such a causal nexus is required to support the grant of asylum. 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000); Saldarriaga v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d
461, 466 (4th Cir. 2005).
Moreover, as Taboh cannot sustain her burden on the
asylum claim, she cannot establish her entitlement to 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 removal under [8
- 2 -
U.S.C.A.] § 1231(b)(3) [(West 2005)].”). In addition, we uphold
the finding that Taboh failed to establish that it was more likely
than not that she would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. See 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
- 3 -