Gabriel Akamin Nkemasong v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 1992 . We have reviewed the evidence of record

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1457
GABRIEL AKAMIN NKEMASONG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-105-001)
Submitted: December 20, 2006 Decided: February 21, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Leon Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol
Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Mary R. Pelletier, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

*Nkemasong did not challenge the denial of his application for
protection under the Convention Against Torture to the Board.
Therefore, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Gabriel Akamin Nkemasong, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. *
Nkemasong challenges the immigration judge’s
determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum.
To obtain reversal of an adverse eligibility determination, 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 the evidence of record and conclude that
it does not compel a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant
Nkemasong the relief he seeks.
Similarly, as Nkemasong does not qualify for asylum, he
is ineligible for withholding of removal. See Camara 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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of
removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Id.
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 --