Khan v. Gonzales ( 2007 )

FILED: July 17, 2007
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1076
EHSAN KHAN; ANJUM EHSAN; FATIMA EHSAN; MARIYAH
EHSAN,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed April 20, 2007, as follows:
On page 1, the petitioners’ alien numbers are deleted from the
agency line.
For the Court
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1076
EHSAN KHAN; ANJUM EHSAN; FATIMA EHSAN; MARIYAH
EHSAN,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: April 20, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy L. McKinney, MCKINNEY & JUSTICE, PA, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Petitioners. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ehsan Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.*
Khan challenges the immigration judge’s determination
that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of an adverse eligibility determination, 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 it does
not compel a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant Khan
the relief he seeks.
Similarly, as Khan does not qualify for asylum, he is
ineligible for withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). “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
*
Khan’s wife, Anjum, and his daughters are derivative
petitioners. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (West 2005); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.21(a) (2006). All are natives and citizens of Pakistan.
- 2 -
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of
removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Id.
Finally, we also find that substantial evidence supports
the finding that Khan 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) (2006). We find that Khan
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 -