Ngbatkam v. Holder ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1514
MARGARET NJOB TESAMBOM NGBATKAM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 30, 2009 Decided: January 19, 2010
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW
ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant
Director, David H. Wetmore, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Margaret Njob Tesambom Ngbatkam, a native and citizen
of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
Ngbatkam first challenges the determination that she
failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. We have
reviewed the administrative record, the immigration judge’s
decision, and the Board’s affirmance thereof, and find that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that Ngbatkam
failed to establish persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of membership in a particular social
group, political opinion, or any other protected ground. See 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006) (defining refugee). We therefore
uphold the denial of relief.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Ngbatkam’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
Ngbatkam failed to show that she is eligible for asylum, she
cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
Finally, we find that substantial evidence supports
the finding that Ngbatkam 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
Ngbatkam 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