Wirba v. Mukasey , 257 F. App'x 619 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1719
GREGORY YELEKPU WIRBA,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-166-823)
Submitted: November 14, 2007 Decided: December 14, 2007
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and Henry F. FLOYD, United
States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting
by designation.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW AND PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Laurie Snyder, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Yelekpu Wirba, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
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 Wirba fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Wirba cannot
meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal.
Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Further, we find that
Wirba did not establish eligibility for protection under CAT. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2007). Finally, Wirba’s claim that the
IJ and Board erred in finding that Wirba filed a frivolous asylum
application is without merit. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(d)(4), (6)
(West 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -