
    Cletus FONGOH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-1447.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 4, 2008.
    Decided: Feb. 14, 2008.
    Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, Beach-Oswald, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Cletus Fongoh, 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 decision, which denied his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Fongoh first contends that the Board erred in concluding that he failed to appeal the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Based on our review of the record, we find that this claim lacks merit. In his Notice of Appeal before the Board, Fongoh simply stated that “the record of proceedings will not support the findings of the Immigration Judge that resulted in the denial of [his] application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under Article III of the Convention Against Torture.” He failed to elaborate or otherwise explain how the immigration judge’s findings were inadequate or unsupported by the record. We therefore agree with the Board that this general assertion of error, coupled with his failure to raise these claims in his brief before the Board, was insufficient to preserve the asylum and withholding claims for review on appeal.

Turning to Fongoh’s remaining claim, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding that he 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) (2007). We find that Fongoh failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. We further find that the immigration judge properly analyzed Fongoh’s claim as required by our decision in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir.2004).

We therefore 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.  