Ngufor v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2293
EMMANUEL ASANJI NGUFOR,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-203-899)
Submitted: July 26, 2006 Decided: August 14, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney,
Richard C. Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Ngufor, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture.
Ngufor challenges the Board’s finding that his testimony
was not credible and that he otherwise failed to meet his burden of
proof to qualify for asylum. We will uphold a negative credibility
determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, see
Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006), and reverse
the Board’s decision only if the evidence “was so compelling that
no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution,” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
Board’s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Ngufor failed to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is
on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same).
- 2 -
Similarly, because Ngufor does not qualify for asylum, he
is also ineligible for withholding of removal. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Finally, substantial
evidence supports the finding that Ngufor 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) (2006).
Ngufor failed 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 -