Njinjoh v. Mukasey , 281 F. App'x 239 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2058
CHARLES BOBGA NJINJOH,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 21, 2008 Decided: June 12, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, Min G. Kang, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION
LAW ASSOC., PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Jeffrey S.
Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Assistant Director, Jessie K. Liu, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Bobga Njinjoh, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of
his applications for relief from removal.
Njinjoh first challenges the determination that he failed
to establish 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 Njinjoh fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to
qualify for asylum, Njinjoh cannot meet the more stringent standard
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).
Finally, we uphold the finding below that Njinjoh failed to
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured if removed to Cameroon. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).
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 -