UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1261
JEANNE D’ARC TOUDJE TONGA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 19, 2008 Decided: December 4, 2008
Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Jamie M.
Dowd, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeanne D’Arc Toudje Tonga (“Toudje Tonga”), a native
and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
Toudje Tonga first challenges the determination that
she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an
alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Toudje Tonga fails to show that the evidence
compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the
relief that she seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Toudje Tonga’s
request for withholding of removal. “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 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because
2
Toudje Tonga failed to show that she is eligible for asylum, she
cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Toudje Tonga failed to meet the standard for relief
under the Convention Against Torture. To 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) (2008). We find that
Toudje Tonga failed to make the requisite showing before the
immigration court.
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
*
We specifically find that the immigration judge properly
analyzed Toudje Tonga’s claims as required by our decision in
Camara. See Camara, 378 F.3d at 370-72.
3