Febeh v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1613
MARY CHIU FEBEH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 29, 2009 Decided: February 26, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General,
William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Jem C. Sponzo, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mary Chiu Febeh, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Febeh first challenges the determination that she
failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an
alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Febeh fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
she seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Febeh’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 Febeh failed to show
that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher
2
standard for withholding of removal. For the same reasons, we
also uphold the denial of Febeh’s request for protection under
the Convention Against Torture.
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