Mitokpe v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1263
MONLOGNI CLEMENT MITOKPE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-221-902)
Submitted: January 18, 2006 Decided: February 6, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Irena I. Karpinski, LAW OFFICES OF IRENA I. KARPINSKI, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney,
Robert F. Daley, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Monlogni Clement Mitokpe, a native and citizen of Togo,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.* The immigration judge ruled
that Mitokpe failed to present sufficient corroborative evidence in
support of his claim, and the Board affirmed without opinion
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2005). Mitokpe contends that
his testimony was credible and corroborated and was therefore
sufficient to sustain his claim.
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 Mitokpe fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir.
2002).
We also reject Mitokpe’s argument that he was denied due
process by the Board. “In order to prevail on a due process
*
Mitokpe does not challenge the immigration judge’s denial of
his applications for withholding of removal or protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Therefore, these claims are waived.
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
- 2 -
challenge to a deportation or asylum hearing, an alien must
demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any such violation.” Rusu,
296 F.3d at 320. We have held that the use of a summary affirmance
procedure such as that employed by the Board in this case does not
violate an alien’s right to due process of law. See Blanco de
Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 282-83 (4th Cir. 2004). This
claim is without merit.
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 -