Dieuner Augustin v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 4th Cir. 1999 . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Dieuner…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2311
DIEUNER AUGUSTIN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-263-385)
Submitted: June 27, 2007 Decided: July 30, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Ashley B. Han,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

*Augustin does not challenge on appeal the denial of
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore find
that he has waived appellate review of this claim. See Edwards v.
City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Dieuner Augustin, a native and citizen of Haiti,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. * We deny the
petition for review.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for asylum relief, 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 Augustin fails to show the
evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant
the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Augustin’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) [(2000)].” Camara v.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Augustin
fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the
higher standard for withholding of removal.
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 --