Nkandu v. Gonzales, No. 05-1966 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1966 BUELA NTOKO MARIE JULIE NKANDU, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-185-280) Submitted: March 24, 2006 Decided: April 21, 2006 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Kristine L. Sendek-Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Buela Ntoko Marie Julie Nkandu, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In her petition for review, Nkandu challenges the determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien must show that the evidence [s]he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Nkandu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Nkandu s request for withholding of removal. Because the burden of proof for 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 As Nkandu fails to show that she is - 2 - eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. We also find that substantial evidence supports the Board s finding that Nkandu 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) (2005). We find that Nkandu failed to make the requisite showing before the Board. 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 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
