Fotso v. Ashcroft ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1364
FERDINAND KAMDEM FOTSO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-603-118)
Submitted: January 26, 2005 Decided: February 8, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph L.T. Tibui, LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH L.T. TIBUI, Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Nancy E. Friedman,
Office of Immigration Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ferdinand Kamdem Fotso, 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
(IJ) denial of his application for asylum.
Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined process,
the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination. Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004). 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)
(quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992)). We
have reviewed the administrative record and the IJ’s decision and
find substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Fotso failed
to establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future
persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on
the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. at 483 (same).
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
- 2 -