Mbeng Enow v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1960 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1960 MBENG AKOH MBU ENOW, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 23, 2009 Decided: July 17, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Beach-Oswald, Amy M. Grunder, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, Arthur L. Rabin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mbeng Akoh Mbu Enow, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying relief from removal. In his petition for review, Enow first argues that the Board erred in finding that he failed to prove that his asylum application was timely filed and that he is thus ineligible for asylum. We lack jurisdiction to review this 8 determination pursuant to U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006), even in light of the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231. See Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007); Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Enow also contends that the Board erred in denying his request for withholding of removal. of removal, probability nationality, a of petitioner persecution membership political opinion. in must show because a To qualify for withholding that of he his particular faces race, social a clear religion, group, or Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that Enow failed to make the requisite showing. Likewise, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Enow failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if 2 removed to Cameroon. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). therefore denial uphold the of relief under the We Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 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.
