Gwem v. Gonzales , 193 F. App'x 187 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2378
NORBERT GWEM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-103-925)
Submitted: July 21, 2006 Decided: August 1, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norbert Gwem, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Norbert Gwem, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying
his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Gwem challenges the
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 Gwem 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 Gwem’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 Gwem fails to show that he
- 2 -
is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.*
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
*
Gwem does not challenge the denial of his request for
protection under the Convention Against Torture in his petition for
review.
- 3 -