Florence Gwanyalla v. Michael Mukasey, No. 08-1296 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1296 FLORENCE N. GWANYALLA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 26, 2008 Decided: October 31, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sopo Ngwa, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Glen T. Jaeger, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Florence N. Gwanyalla, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge s denial of her applications for relief from removal. Gwanyalla first challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility for asylum. 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 Gwanyalla fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Gwanyalla cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Gwanyalla failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. Accordingly, we deny 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). 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.