Aholou v. Mukasey ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1554
AMEE AHOLOU,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-625-315)
Submitted: December 17, 2007 Decided: January 7, 2008
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jason Xavier Hamilton,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Amee Aholou, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. We treat the immigration
judge’s reasoning as that of the Board’s in our review. Haoua v.
Gonzales, 472 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 2007).
Aholou challenges the immigration judge’s finding that
her testimony was not credible and that she otherwise failed to
meet her burden of proving her eligibility for asylum. We will
reverse this decision only if the evidence “was so compelling that
no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution,” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and we uphold
credibility determinations if they are supported by substantial
evidence. Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
supports the adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Aholou
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for
asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating that the burden
of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum);
- 2 -
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Moreover,
as Aholou cannot sustain her burden on the asylum claim, she cannot
establish her entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (“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) [(2000)].”).
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Aholou fails 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) (2007). Upon reviewing the administrative
record, we find that the immigration judge applied the proper
standard to assess the evidence, and that Aholou 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 -