UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1387
GLADYS MARGARETTE PUFONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 25, 2009 Decided: March 25, 2009
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter T. Ndikum, IMMIGRATION ASSISTANCE CENTER, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gladys Margarette Pufong, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
Pufong 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 Pufong 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 Pufong’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 Pufong failed to
2
show that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
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
*
To the extent that Pufong suggests that she is entitled to
protection under the Convention Against Torture, we note that we
lack jurisdiction over any such claim in light of the Board’s
finding, which Pufong does not challenge, that she failed to
preserve the issue before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
(2006) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . .
. the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available
to the alien as of right.”); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631,
638-39 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that the court lacks
jurisdiction to consider an argument that was not raised before
the Board and providing no exception for manifest injustice).
3