UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1356
PATRICIA UCHEOMA EGEKWU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-2050
PATRICIA UCHEOMA EGEKWU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 19, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Daniel
Glenn Lonergan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Ucheoma Egekwu, a native and citizen of
Nigeria, petitions for review of orders of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judge’s
denial of her applications for relief from removal, and denying
her motion to reopen and reconsider.
Egekwu first challenges the determination that she
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 Egekwu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, she 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).
We likewise uphold the finding below that Egekwu
failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she
would be tortured if removed to Nigeria. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). Though Egekwu also challenges the
denial of cancellation of removal, we do not have jurisdiction
to review the finding below that Egekwu failed to demonstrate
3
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying
relative in order to demonstrate eligibility for that relief.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales, 435
F.3d 475, 481-82 (4th Cir. 2006); see also Obioha v. Gonzales,
431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005). Finally, we find no abuse of
discretion in the Board’s decision to deny Egekwu’s motion to
reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
4