UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1118
CHINEDU NWOBODO AMADIFE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 10, 2011 Decided: February 15, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter T. Ndikum, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant
Director, Lindsay E. Williams, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Chinedu Nwobodo Amadife, a native and citizen of
Nigeria, 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.
Amadife 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 Amadife fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Amadife’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
Amadife failed to show that he is eligible for asylum, he 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
∗
Amadife failed to raise any challenges to the denial of
his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)
(finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief
results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).
3