Tangwa v. Gonzales , 159 F. App'x 522 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1635
NICOLE NGAMLIA TANGWA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-254-484)
Submitted: November 18, 2005 Decided: December 27, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph L. T. Tibui, LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. T. TIBUI, Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
Brian E. Bentley, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nicole Ngamlia Tangwa, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s decision to
deny her applications for asylum and withholding from removal.* We
deny the petition for review.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is conclusive if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings
of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2000). We 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) (quoting Huaman-Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999
(internal quotation marks omitted)). We find the immigration
judge’s negative credibility finding was supported by substantial
evidence. We further find the evidence was not so compelling as to
warrant reversal.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
*
Tangwa does not challenge the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture.
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -