Iryna Sanko v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
IRYNA SANKO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
May 20, 2009
June 8, 2009
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Serghei Potorac, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Iryna petitions for Sanko, review a of native the and of citizen of Belarus, Appeals'
("Board") order dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge's order denying her application for asylum and withholding of
Sanko challenges the Board's finding that she failed
to establish that the discrimination she faced in Belarus on account of her or religious that she beliefs has a rose to the fear level of of
persecution if she is returned to Belarus. forth below, we deny the petition for review. We have reviewed the
For the reasons set
immigration judge's decision and find that substantial evidence supports the ruling that Sanko failed to submit sufficient
corroboration to establish her claim of past persecution or a well-founded establish fear of future for persecution, See 8 as necessary § to
(2008) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
Sanko did not appeal to the Board the immigration judge's denial of her application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. To the extent she seeks to raise the issue in this court, we lack jurisdiction to review this claim in the absence of administrative exhaustion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006).
U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). her burden on the asylum
Moreover, as Sanko cannot sustain claim, she cannot establish her
entitlement to withholding of removal.
See Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 ("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) [(2006)]."). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?