Wilson Lobe Eseme v. Michael B. Mukasey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1166
WILSON LOBE ESEME,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 30, 2008 Decided: October 8, 2008
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, ENOW & PATCHA IMMIGRATION PRACTICE, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Kristina R.
Sracic, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Wilson Lobe Eseme, 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 order finding him removable and denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have reviewed the administrative record, the
immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s affirmance thereof,
and find that substantial evidence supports the ruling that Eseme
failed to establish a nexus between the past persecution he
sustained and his political opinion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
(2008) (stating that burden of proof is on alien to establish
eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483
(1992) (same). Such a causal nexus is required to support the
grant of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006); Abdel-Rahman v.
Gonzales, 493 F.3d 444, 450-51 (4th Cir. 2007); Saldarriaga v.
Gonzales, 402 F.3d 461, 466 (4th Cir. 2005).
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Eseme’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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Eseme fails to show that he
is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
Finally, we affirm the denial of Eseme’s request for
protection under the CAT. Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that Eseme’s evidence did not establish that it is more
likely than not that he would be subjected to torture at the hands
of government agents or with their acquiescence if he were to
return to Cameroon. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008) (to
establish eligibility for CAT protection, the applicant must show
that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured
if removed to the proposed country of removal”).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. 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 --