Asangong v. Mukasey , 258 F. App'x 584 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1386
MARGARET BIH ASANGONG,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-923-860)
Submitted: November 26, 2007 Decided: December 17, 2007
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William P. Joyce, JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Boston, Massachusetts,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Joshua E. Braunstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, J. Max Weintraub,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Margaret Bih Asangong, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming 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, Asangong challenges the
ruling that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. We
will reverse this decision only if the evidence “was so compelling
that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite
fear of persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th
Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We
have reviewed the Board’s decision and the administrative record
and find that substantial evidence supports the determination that
Asangong failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution as necessary to establish eligibility
for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating that the
burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for
asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same).
Moreover, as Asangong cannot sustain her burden on the
asylum claim, she cannot establish her entitlement to 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
- 2 -
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)].”). In addition, we uphold the finding that
Asangong failed to establish that it was more likely than not that
she would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2007).
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 -