Gnago v. Gonzales, No. 06-1086 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1086 SERGE GERVAIS GNAGO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-712-933) Submitted: July 31, 2006 Decided: September 11, 2006 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, John J. Siemietkowski, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Serge Gervais Gnago, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions Immigration for Appeals review (Board) of a decision affirming the of the Board immigration of judge s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Gnago challenges the Board s finding that he failed to meet his burden of proof to qualify for asylum. We will reverse this decision only if the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We have reviewed the evidence of record and the immigration judge s decision, and we conclude that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Gnago failed to show past persecution or the well-founded fear of future necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. persecution See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Moreover, since Gnago cannot sustain his burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) ( Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the - 2 - same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3). ). We also find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Gnago 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) (2006). Gnago failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration judge. 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.
