UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1976
CALISTER SIMANGWI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: May 20, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Nkwenti, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michelle G.
Latour, Assistant Director, Nairi M. Simonian, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Calister Simangwi, 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.
Before this court, Simangwi 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 Simangwi 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 Simangwi’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
Simangwi 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 Simangwi 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
Simangwi 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
3