Tchoua v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2408
IRENE MBATKAM TCHOUA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-102-305)
Submitted: September 25, 2006 Decided: December 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Larry D.
Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Irene Mbatkam Tchoua, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Tchoua challenges the
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 Tchoua fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he
seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Tchoua’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 Tchoua fails to show that
- 2 -
he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Tchoua failed 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) (2006). We find that Tchoua
failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.
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
*
Tchoua also argues that the Board erred in failing to remand
the record to the immigration judge in light of the poor
translation by the court interpreter and missing words in the
transcript. Tchoua, however, never objected to the transcript or
the translation on appeal to the Board, nor did he ask for a remand
on this ground. He has therefore waived his right to raise this
argument before this court. See Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700
(4th Cir. 1990).
- 3 -