Bello v. Ashcroft , 114 F. App'x 120 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1215
SOULEYMANE BANDELE BELLO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-478-496)
Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: December 3, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian E. Mezger, LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN E. MEZGER, Bethesda, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Alison M. Igoe, Senior Litigation Counsel, Alison R. Drucker,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Souleymane Bandele Bello, a native and citizen of Niger,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Bello challenges the Board’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 Bello 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 Bello’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 Bello fails to show that he
- 2 -
is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also uphold the denial of Bello’s request for
protection 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) (2004). We find
that Bello fails to make the requisite showing.
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 -