Anagho v. Keisler , 249 F. App'x 980 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1222
EDWARD ATEKWANA ANAGHO,
Petitioner,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-185-038)
Submitted: September 17, 2007 Decided: October 9, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Angela N. Liang, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Atekwana Anagho, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s
denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because of the
Board’s summary affirmance, the immigration judge’s decision serves
as the final agency determination. Lin-Jian v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d
182, 187 (4th Cir. 2007); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2007).
Anagho challenges the immigration judge’s finding that
his testimony was not credible and that he otherwise failed to meet
his burden of proving eligibility for asylum. We will reverse this
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
quotation marks and citations omitted), and we uphold credibility
determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence.
Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
supports the adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Anagho
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution on a protected ground, as necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating
- 2 -
that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility
for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)
(same). Moreover, as Anagho cannot sustain his burden on the
asylum claim, he cannot establish entitlement to withholding of
removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004)
(“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)
[(2000)].”).
Anagho also alleges that the Board erred in denying him
protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for
this protection, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating
that “it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if
removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2007). Anagho failed to make such a showing.
Accordingly, we deny Anagho’s 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 -