Amouzou v. Mukasey , 286 F. App'x 15 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1074
VERONIQUE FLORE AMOUZOU,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-1576
VERONIQUE FLORE AMOUZOU,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-1977
VERONIQUE FLORE AMOUZOU,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: August 4, 2008
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph R. Guerra, Brian E. Nelson, SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Stephen J. Flynn, Senior Litigation Counsel, Arthur L.
Rabin, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Veronique Flore Amouzou,
a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of three
separate orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals: (1) Case No.
07-1074, adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s decision
denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture; (2) Case No. 07-
1576, denying her motion to reopen; and (3) Case No. 07-1977,
denying her motion to reconsider.
In Case No. 07-1074, Amouzou 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 Amouzou fails to show that the evidence compels
a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
she seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Amouzou’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
- 3 -
removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Amouzou fails to show that
she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Amouzou 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) (2008). We find that Amouzou
failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in Case No. 07-1074.
In Case No. 07-1576, Amouzou contends that the Board
abused its discretion in denying her motion to reopen. Based on
our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the
Board’s finding that Amouzou failed to establish that the evidence
she sought to introduce was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2008) (setting forth standard of review); Onyeme v.
INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (recognizing the failure to
introduce previously unavailable, material evidence as an
independent ground on which a motion to reopen may be denied). We
therefore deny the petition for review in Case No. 07-1576.
Finally, in Case No. 07-1977, Amouzou claims that the
Board abused its discretion in denying her motion to reconsider and
- 4 -
in denying her request for sua sponte reopening. We find no abuse
of discretion in the Board’s finding that Amouzou failed to
establish an error of fact or law in its prior decision.
Additionally, we lack jurisdiction to review Amouzou’s claim that
the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen her
removal proceedings. See Lenis v. United States Att’y Gen., 525
F.3d 1291, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). We
therefore deny the petition for review in Case No. 07-1977.
Accordingly, we deny all three petitions for review as
set forth above. 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 5 -