Kayi Goudeagbe v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2142
KAYI GOUDEAGBE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 19, 2009 Decided: June 17, 2009
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Lyle D.
Jentzer, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward J. Duffy, Trial
Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kayi Goudeagbe, a native and citizen of Togo,
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
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Before this court, Goudeagbe challenges the
determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for
asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying
eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence
[s]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 Goudeagbe fails to show
that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that she seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Goudeagbe’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
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Goudeagbe failed to show that she is eligible for asylum, she
cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Goudeagbe 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
Goudeagbe 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 --