Ndir v. Keisler , 250 F. App'x 538 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1118
PAPA ABDALLAH NDIR,
Petitioner,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-604-924)
Submitted: September 21, 2007 Decided: October 10, 2007
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carrie Crawford, Laurel, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant
Director, Dalin R. Holyoak, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Papa Abdallah Ndir, a native and citizen of Senegal,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”), dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Ndir challenges the
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 Ndir 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 Ndir’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) [(2000)].” Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Ndir fails to
- 2 -
show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Ndir fails to meet the standard for relief under the
Convention Against Torture. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113,
124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review). 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). We
find that Ndir 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 -