Margaret Njob Tesambom NGBATKAM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 361 F. App'x 472

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Margaret Njob Tesambom Ngbatkam, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Ngbatkam first challenges the determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum.

We have reviewed the administrative record, the immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s affir-mance thereof, and find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that Ngbatkam failed to establish persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group, political opinion, or any other protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006) (defining refugee). We therefore uphold the denial of relief.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Ngbatkam’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 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). Because Ngbatkam failed to show that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.

Finally, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Ngbatkam failed to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). We find that Ngbatkam failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. 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.