Osayande v. Gonzales , 158 F. App'x 516 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1041
VICTOR OSAYANDE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A70-887-141)
Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 29, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond D. Kline, Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gretchen
C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina;
Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Victor Osayande petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Osayande challenges the
immigration judge’s 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 Osayande 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 Osayande’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 Osayande fails to show that
he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
- 2 -
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Osayande 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) (2005). We find that Osayande
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 -