UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1872
OMONDO MOUKO; MICHELA RAOUL BANIMBEK,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 8, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Darwin Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Monica G. Antoun, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Omondo Mouko and his wife, Michela Raoul Banimbek,
both natives and citizens of Cameroon, petition for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing
their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of Mouko’s
applications for relief from removal.
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
[Board]’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). Furthermore,
“[t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum
is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an
2
abuse of discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600
(4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and
Petitioners’ claims and conclude that substantial evidence
supports the Board’s determination that Mouko failed to
establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. We
further uphold the finding below that Mouko failed to qualify
for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012).
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