Christopher Telelen Mbelem v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1194
CHRISTOPHER TELELEN MBELEM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 16, 2009 Decided: January 4, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, P. Michael
Truman, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Telelen Mbelem, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
Mbelem first challenges the determination that he
failed to establish his 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 Mbelem’s claims and the
evidence of record and conclude that he fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. We therefore find that
substantial evidence supports the denial of relief.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Mbelem’s request
for withholding of removal. “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 who is
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Mbelem failed to
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
Finally, we find that substantial evidence supports
the finding that Mbelem failed 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) (2009). We find that
Mbelem failed to make the requisite showing before the
immigration court.
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 of 3 --