Ndole Disue v. Gonzales , 210 F. App'x 329 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1169
JENNET SENGE NDOLE DISUE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-889-047)
Submitted: October 25, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, Employment Law Group, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Angela N. Liang, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jennet Senge Ndole Disue, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.* Ndole Disue
challenges the Board’s finding that her testimony was not credible
and that she otherwise failed to meet her burden of proof to
qualify for asylum. We will uphold a negative credibility
determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, see
Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006), and reverse
the Board’s decision only if the evidence “was so compelling that
no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
Board’s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Ndole Disue failed
to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is
*
Ndole Disue does not challenge on appeal the denial of
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore find
that she has waived appellate review of this claim. See Edwards v.
City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Similarly,
because Ndole Disue does not qualify for asylum, she is ineligible
for withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361,
367 (4th Cir. 2004).
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
- 3 -