Gwem v. Gonzales

Filing 920060801

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2378

NORBERT GWEM, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-103-925)

Submitted:

July 21, 2006

Decided:

August 1, 2006

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norbert Gwem, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Norbert Gwem, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Gwem 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." 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

We have reviewed the evidence of record and

conclude that Gwem fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. seeks. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Gwem's request for withholding of removal. "Because the burden of proof for Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he

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)." F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Camara v. Ashcroft, 378

Because Gwem fails to show that he

- 2 -

is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.* 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

Gwem does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture in his petition for review. - 3 -

*