Cletus Fongoh v. Michael Mukasey

Filing 920080214

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1447 CLETUS FONGOH, Petitioner, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A98-610-644) Submitted: February 4, 2008 Decided: February 14, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cletus Fongoh, 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 decision, which denied his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Fongoh first contends that the Board erred in concluding that he failed to appeal the immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Based on our In his review of the record, we find that this claim lacks merit. Notice of Appeal before the Board, Fongoh simply stated that "the record of proceedings will not support the findings of the Immigration Judge that resulted in the denial of [his] application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under Article III of the Convention Against how Torture." the He failed to elaborate findings or otherwise explain immigration judge's were inadequate or unsupported by the record. We therefore agree with the Board that this general assertion of error, coupled with his failure to raise these claims in his brief before the Board, was insufficient to preserve the asylum and withholding claims for review on appeal. Turning to Fongoh's remaining claim, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding that he failed to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To - 2 - 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) (2007). We find that Fongoh failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. We further find that the immigration judge properly analyzed Fongoh's claim as required by our decision in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore 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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?