Owens v. Gonzales , 155 F. App'x 720 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-1130
    MARY OLUSOLA OWENS,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A96-088-587)
    Submitted:   October 19, 2005             Decided:   December 1, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
    Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
    Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, Office of Immigration
    Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Mary Olusola Owens, a native and citizen of the Gambia,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge's denial of her
    applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
    under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).*           The Board affirmed
    the   ruling   of   the   immigration    judge   without   opinion.   Owens
    contends on appeal that her evidence was sufficient to support her
    applications for relief.
    To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
    for asylum, 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).       This court will reverse the Board “only
    if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable
    factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”
    Rusu v. INS, 
    296 F.3d 316
    , 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quotation
    marks and citations omitted).           We have reviewed the evidence of
    record and conclude that Owens fails to show that the evidence
    compels a contrary result.
    *
    Owens’s brief contains only a short reference to the CAT,
    obviously taken from the facts of another case and included by
    error. Therefore, we find that any claim as to the denial of CAT
    protection is waived. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 
    178 F.3d 231
    , 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
    - 2 -
    Nor can Owens show that she was entitled to withholding
    of removal under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (b)(3) (2000). “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).
    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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1130

Citation Numbers: 155 F. App'x 720

Judges: Wilkinson, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/1/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024