Basima Potcho v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2469
BASIMA POTCHO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 12, 2013 Decided: July 16, 2013
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Appellant. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Elizabeth R. Chapman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Basima Potcho, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s
decision denying relief from removal. Potcho disputes the
finding that she failed to qualify for asylum, withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v.
Elias-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. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).
Legal issues are reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate
deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the INA 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Potcho failed to meet her statutory burdens. We therefore
uphold the denial of Potcho’s requests for asylum and
withholding of removal. See Camera 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 same — an applicant who is
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).
Finally, to qualify for CAT protection, a petitioner
bears the burden of demonstrating 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) (2013). We have
reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial
evidence supports the agency’s denial of this relief.
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --