Kamgang v. Gonzales , 158 F. App'x 496 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1429
PATRICK KAMGANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-905-707)
Submitted: December 12, 2005 Decided: December 28, 2005
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacqueline E. Ngole, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jonathan
S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Kamgang, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
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 Kamgang fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Kamgang
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). In addition, we uphold
the IJ’s finding that Kamgang failed to establish that it was more
likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cameroon.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Finally, in light of the
above conclusions, we reject Kamgang’s claim that the Board
violated immigration regulations in using the affirmance without
opinion procedure in this case.
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 -