Omondo Mouko v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1872 OMONDO MOUKO; MICHELA RAOUL BANIMBEK, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 8, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Darwin Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Monica G. Antoun, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Omondo Mouko and his wife, Michela Raoul Banimbek, both natives and citizens of Cameroon, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal from the Immigration JudgeâÄôs denial of MoukoâÄôs applications for relief from removal. A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial INS v. Elias- evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. reviewed 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). de [Board]âÄôs novo, âÄúaffording interpretation appropriate of the INA Legal issues are deference and any to the attendant regulations.âÄĚ Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the Board only if âÄúthe evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.âÄĚ Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 316, 296 F.3d 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, âÄú[t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum is âÄėconclusive unless manifestly 2 contrary to the law and an Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 abuse of discretion.âÄôâÄĚ (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). We PetitionersâÄô supports have reviewed claims the and BoardâÄôs the conclude evidence that determination of record substantial that Mouko and evidence failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. We further uphold the finding below that Mouko failed to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. Â§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2012). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because 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