Basima Potcho v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2469

BASIMA POTCHO,

Petitioner,

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted: June 12, 2013 Decided: July 16, 2013

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Appellant. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Elizabeth R. Chapman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Basima Potcho, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Board) dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s

decision denying relief from removal. Potcho disputes the

finding that she failed to qualify for asylum, withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT).

A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial

evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative

findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled

to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).

Legal issues are reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate

deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the INA and any

attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685,

691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the Board only

if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v.

INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).

2
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude

that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that

Potcho failed to meet her statutory burdens. We therefore

uphold the denial of Potcho’s requests for asylum and

withholding of removal. See Camera v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361,

367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“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).”).

Finally, to qualify for CAT protection, a petitioner

bears the burden of demonstrating 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) (2013). We have

reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial

evidence supports the agency’s denial of this relief.

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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED