Kagwimi v. Gonzales , 233 F. App'x 326 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2065
EUNICE WAMIRU KAGWIMI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-265-285; A95-265-284)
Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 13, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, John
C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ashley B. Han, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eunice Wamiru Kagwimi, a native and citizen of Kenya,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision
denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In her petition for review, Kagwimi 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 Kagwimi 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 Kagwimi’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 Kagwimi fails to show that
- 2 -
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 Kagwimi 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) (2006). We find that Kagwimi
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 -