Elongo v. Gonzales , 159 F. App'x 519 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1503
TADEO ELONGO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-906-274)
Submitted: November 21, 2005 Decided: December 27, 2005
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank D.
Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tadeo Elongo, a native and citizen of the Democratic
Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion, pursuant to
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2005), the immigration judge’s denial of
his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. Elongo contends on appeal
that his evidence was sufficient to support his applications for
relief.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for asylum, 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 Elongo fails to show that the evidence compels a
result contrary to the immigration judge’s ruling, as affirmed by
the Board.
Nor can Elongo show that he 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).
- 2 -
Additionally, we find that substantial evidence supports
the finding that Elongo fails to meet the standard for relief 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) (2005). We conclude that
Elongo failed to make the requisite showing below.
Therefore, 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 -