Filed: Sep. 11, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1086 SERGE GERVAIS GNAGO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-712-933) Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: September 11, 2006 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1086 SERGE GERVAIS GNAGO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-712-933) Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: September 11, 2006 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petition..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1086
SERGE GERVAIS GNAGO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-712-933)
Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: September 11, 2006
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, John J.
Siemietkowski, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Serge Gervais Gnago, a native and citizen of the Ivory
Coast, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Gnago challenges
the Board’s finding that he failed to meet his burden of proof to
qualify for asylum. We will reverse this 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 quotation marks and
citations omitted). We have reviewed the evidence of record and
the immigration judge’s decision, and we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the conclusion that Gnago failed to show past
persecution or the well-founded fear of future persecution
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).
Moreover, since Gnago cannot sustain his burden on the
asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to withholding of
removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004)
(“Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher
than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the
- 2 -
same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily
ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.]
§ 1231(b)(3).”).
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Gnago 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). Gnago failed to make the
requisite showing before the immigration judge.
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 -