Taboh v. Mukasey

284 F. App'x 29
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 14, 2008
Docket07-1518
StatusUnpublished

This text of 284 F. App'x 29 (Taboh v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Taboh v. Mukasey, 284 F. App'x 29 (4th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Evodia Kah Taboh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s order finding her removable and denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review.

We have reviewed the administrative record, the immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s affirmance thereof, and find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that Taboh failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating that burden of proof is on alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (same). Such a causal nexus is required to support the grant of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000); Saldarriaga v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 461, 466 (4th Cir.2005).

Moreover, as Taboh cannot sustain her burden on the asylum claim, she cannot establish her entitlement to 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 ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.A.] § 1231(b)(3) [ (West 2005) ].”). In addition, we uphold the finding that Taboh failed to establish that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2007).

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 F. App'x 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taboh-v-mukasey-ca4-2008.