Emilienne Sobze Kenfack v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1543 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1543 EMILIENNE MADELEINE SOBZE Madeleine Sobze Kenefack, KENFACK, a/k/a Emilienne Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 11, 2012 Decided: December 20, 2012 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Dawn S. Conrad, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Emilienne Madeleine Sobze Kenfack ( Sobze ), a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of Against Torture. removal, and protection under the Convention For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review. A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). INS v. Elias- Administrative findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. reviewed [Board] s 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). de novo, affording interpretation of appropriate the Legal issues are deference [Immigration and to the Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the . Board only if the evidence . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, [t]he agency decision 2 that an alien is not eligible for asylum is conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion. Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial finding. We sufficient evidence further conclude independent notwithstanding the supports the that evidence adverse adverse Sobze of failed past credibility credibility to present persecution, determination, as discussed in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore uphold the denial of Sobze s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. at 367 ( Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum even though the facts that must be proved are the same an applicant ineligible for who is ineligible withholding of for asylum removal is under necessarily [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3). ). Additionally, Sobze challenges the denial of request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. her To qualify for such protection, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of showing it is more likely than not that he or she would be removal. tortured if removed to the 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012). proposed country of Based on our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports 3 the denial of her request for relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review). Accordingly, dispense with contentions are oral we deny argument adequately the petition because presented in the the for facts review. We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
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.
