Takoulo v. Gonzales ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1835
HERVE FONKOU TAKOULO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-275-083)
Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Meredith L. Burrell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Herve Fonkou Takoulo, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Takoulo 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 Takoulo 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 Takoulo’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 Takoulo fails to show that
- 2 -
he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.1
Accordingly, although we grant the pending motion to file
a supplemental appendix, we deny the petition for review.2 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
1
Takoulo does not challenge the immigration judge’s denial of
his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture in
his petition for review.
2
To the extent that Takoulo challenges the immigration judge’s
refusal to allow his witness to testify, we find that he has waived
this claim by failing to raise it before the Board. See Asika v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004); Farrokhi v. INS,
900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir. 1990).
- 3 -