Arlette Lydvine Jindjou v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 4th Cir. 2004 . Jindjou challenges the immigration…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1684
ARLETTE LYDVINE JINDJOU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-634-737)
Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: March 17, 2006
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Robert K.
Coulter, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Arlette Lydvine Jindjou, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined process,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2005), the immigration judge’s
decision is the final agency determination. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004).
Jindjou challenges the immigration judge’s finding that
her testimony was not credible, and that she otherwise failed to
meet her 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)
(quotation marks and citations omitted). Credibility
determinations of the immigration judge and the Board are entitled
to deference as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.
See Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir 1999).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
supports the conclusion that Jindjou failed to establish past
persecution or the well-founded fear of future persecution

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(a) (2005) (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, because Jindjou cannot
sustain her burden on the asylum claim, she cannot establish her
entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara, 378 F.3d 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 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
immigration judge’s finding, as affirmed by the Board, that Jindjou
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) (2005). Jindjou 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 of 3 --