UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1579
AMARA CAMARA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 27, 2008 Decided: October 22, 2008
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey L.
Menkin, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Amara Camara, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his
applications for relief from removal.
Camara 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 Camara fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to
qualify for asylum, Camara 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).
Next, we uphold the finding below that Camara failed to
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured if removed to Guinea. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Camara’s challenge to the
Board’s finding that he did not meet his burden of showing by clear
and convincing evidence that he filed his asylum application within
*
Camara claims that the Board erred in declining to consider
evidence he submitted with his appeal brief. We find no error in
the Board’s ruling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (2008).
- 2 -
one year of his entry into the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2006); Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th
Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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 IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -