Jean Djindjeu Nkwendja v. Michael Mukasey, No. 07-1862 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1862 JEAN COLBERT DJINDJEU NKWENDJA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 20, 2008 Decided: July 15, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Nyoh, PETER NYOH AND ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, W. Manning Evans, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jean Colbert Djindjeu Nkwendja, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions Immigration Appeals for review affirming of an without order of opinion the the Board of Immigration Judge s denial of his applications for relief from removal. Nkwendja first challenges the determination failed to establish eligibility for asylum. that he 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. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Nkwendja fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Nkwendja cannot standard for withholding of removal. meet the more stringent Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 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 - 2 -

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.