Alekawa v. Mukasey , 256 F. App'x 615 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1338
BIYAO ALEKAWA,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-678-754)
Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: December 4, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter T. Ndikum, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Debora Gerads, Trial Attorney, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Biyao Alekawa, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting
and affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying his requests
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture.
Alekawa first challenges the determination that he failed
to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a
determination denying eligibility for relief, 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 Alekawa fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Alekawa’s request
for withholding of removal. “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). Because Alekawa fails to show that
he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
- 2 -
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Alekawa 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) (2007). We find that Alekawa
failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.
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 -