Atanga v. Holder , 357 F. App'x 558 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1472
ROLINDIS NGWEMENCHU ATANGA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 18, 2009 Decided: December 18, 2009
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter Nyoh, PETER NYOH & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer
L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, Channah M. Farber,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rolindis Ngwemenchu Atanga, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Atanga first challenges the determination that she
failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an
alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Atanga 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 Atanga’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 Atanga failed to
2
show that she is eligible for asylum, she 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
∗
Atanga has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of
her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
She 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