Wirba v. Mukasey, No. 06-1719 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1719 GREGORY YELEKPU WIRBA, Petitioner, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A98-166-823) Submitted: November 14, 2007 Decided: December 14, 2007 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and Henry F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW AND PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Laurie Snyder, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Yelekpu Wirba, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for 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. 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Wirba fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Wirba cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Cir. 1999); INS Further, we find that Wirba did not establish eligibility for protection under CAT. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2007). v. See Finally, Wirba s claim that the IJ and Board erred in finding that Wirba filed a frivolous asylum See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(d)(4), (6) application is without merit. (West 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions - 2 - are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.