Wilfred Mokoko Nasama Mukete v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-1625 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1625 WILFRED MOKOKO NASAMA MUKETE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 15, 2011 Decided: March 4, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin M. Tabe, LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN M. TABE, P.C., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wilfred Mokoko Nasama Mukete, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge s denial of his applications for relief from removal. Mukete first challenges the determination failed to establish eligibility for asylum. of a determination denying eligibility for that he To obtain reversal 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. (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Mukete fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Mukete cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 1999); INS v. Finally, we uphold the finding below that Mukete failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because 2 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

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.