Iryna Sanko v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090608

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1556 IRYNA SANKO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 20, 2009 Decided: 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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Immigration ("Board") order dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge's order denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. * 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, well-founded future persecution if she is returned to Belarus. forth below, we deny the petition for review. We have reviewed the For the reasons set administrative record and the 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 eligibility asylum. C.F.R. 1208.13(a) (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). * 2 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 argument because contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3

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?