Guilavogui v. Gonzales , 193 F. App'x 200 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1733
KOIKOI GUILAVOGUI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-188-480)
Submitted: July 24, 2006 Decided: August 2, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, Virginia; Paul S. Allen, PAUL
SHEARMAN ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Kevin J. Mikolashek,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Koikoi Guilavogui, a native and citizen of Guinea,
petitions for review of a decision 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 the Board
affirmed under its streamlined process, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)
(2006), the immigration judge’s decision is the final agency
determination. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir.
2004).
Guilavogui challenges the immigration judge’s finding
that he failed to meet his burden of proof to qualify 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). We have reviewed the evidence of record and the
immigration judge’s decision, and we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the conclusion that Guilavogui failed to show
past persecution or the well-founded fear of future persecution
necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating 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).
- 2 -
Moreover, since Guilavogui cannot sustain his burden on
the asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to
withholding of removal. See Camara, 378 F.3d at 367 (“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).”).
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s finding, as affirmed by the Board, that
Guilavogui 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) (2006). Guilavogui failed to make the
requisite showing before the immigration judge.
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 -