UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1225
PATRICK WANJEHIA GAKUO,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 16, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, ENOW & PATCHA IMMIGRATION PRACTICE, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Yamileth
G. HandUber, Joseph I. Frydman, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Wanjehia Gakuo, a native and citizen of Kenya,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial
of his applications for relief from removal.
Gakuo first challenges the determination that he
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 Gakuo fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Gakuo 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 Gakuo failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
that he would be tortured if removed to Kenya. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3