Omondo Mouko v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A087-350-004,A087-350-005 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998871143].. [11-1872]

Appeal: 11-1872

Doc: 30

Filed: 06/08/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1872

OMONDO MOUKO; MICHELA RAOUL BANIMBEK,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

May 31, 2012

Decided:

June 8, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Darwin Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioners.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney
General,
Jennifer
P.
Levings,
Senior
Litigation
Counsel, Monica G. Antoun, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1872

Doc: 30

Filed: 06/08/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Omondo

Mouko

and

his

wife,

Michela

Raoul

Banimbek,

both natives and citizens of Cameroon, petition for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing
their

appeal

from

the

Immigration

Judge’s

denial

of

Mouko’s

applications for relief from removal.
A

determination

regarding

eligibility

for

asylum

or

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
INS v. Elias-

evidence on the record considered as a whole.
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Administrative findings of

fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary.
reviewed

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).
de

[Board]’s

novo,

“affording

interpretation

appropriate

of

the

INA

Legal issues are
deference

and

any

to

the

attendant

regulations.”

Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th

Cir. 2008).

This court will reverse the Board only if “the

evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder

could

fail

to

find

the

requisite

fear

of

persecution.”

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v.

INS,

316,

296

F.3d

325

n.14

(4th

Cir.

2002).

Furthermore,

“[t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum
is

‘conclusive

unless

manifestly

2

contrary

to

the

law

and

an

Appeal: 11-1872

Doc: 30

Filed: 06/08/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600

abuse of discretion.’”

(4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).
We
Petitioners’
supports

have

reviewed

claims

the

and

Board’s

the

conclude

evidence
that

determination

of

record

substantial

that

Mouko

and

evidence

failed

to

establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal.

We

further uphold the finding below that Mouko failed to qualify
for

protection

under

the

Convention

Against

Torture.

See

8

C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012).
Accordingly,
dispense

with

oral

we

deny

argument

the

petition

because

the

for
facts

review.
and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3