UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2305
RICHARD NGUTI ADE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 16, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, ENOW & ASSOCIATES IMMIGRATION PRACTICE, Marietta,
Georgia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Jeffery R. Leist,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Richard Nguti Ade, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Ade first challenges the determination that he failed
to establish his 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 Ade fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result. We therefore find that substantial evidence supports
the denial of relief.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Ade’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 Ade failed to show
2
that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
Finally, we find that substantial evidence supports
the finding that Ade 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) (2009). We find that Ade
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