Weah v. Department of Homeland Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1489
JOHN DORTUE WEAH,
Petitioner,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN
ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-477-351)
Submitted: January 5, 2005 Decided: January 26, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior Litigation Counsel, Larry P.
Cote, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent Ashcroft.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Dortue Weah, a native and citizen of Liberia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Weah challenges the
immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his
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 Weah fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that he seeks. We further uphold the
immigration judge’s determination that Weah’s asylum application
was frivolous. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2004).
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Weah’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
- 2 -
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Weah fails to show that he
is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that Weah 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) (2004). We find
that Weah fails to make the requisite showing.
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 -