Nganso v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1679
NADEGE YOLANDE NGANSO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-1948
NADEGE YOLANDE NGANSO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-095-089)
Submitted: January 18, 2006 Decided: February 8, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua A. Moses, JOSHUA MOSES & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Song E. Park,
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Nadege
Yolande Nganso, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order adopting and
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture, and its order denying her motion to reopen
immigration proceedings.
In her petition for review, Nganso 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 Nganso fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she
seeks.1
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Nganso’s request
for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for
1
We have also considered Nganso’s challenge to the immigration
judge’s refusal to allow her witness to testify and discern no
prejudice from the immigration judge’s decision. See Rusu v. INS,
296 F.3d 316, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that a petitioner
must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she
was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process).
- 3 -
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 Nganso fails to show that
she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.2
Finally, we find that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying Nganso’s motion to reopen immigration
proceedings. We agree with the Board’s determination that Nganso
failed to present clear and convincing evidence indicating a strong
likelihood that her marriage is bona fide as required by Matter of
Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253 (B.I.A. 2002).
Accordingly, we deny the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
2
Nganso does not challenge the denial of protection under the
Convention Against Torture in her brief. She has therefore waived
appellate review of this claim. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 4 -