Sanam Thapa v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090810

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1739

SANAM THAPA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

July 22, 2009

Decided:

August 10, 2009

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, LAW OFFICE OF VISUVANATHAN RUDRAKUMARAN, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Sanam Thapa, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of an order his of the Board from of the Immigration immigration Appeals judge's

("Board")

dismissing

appeal

denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Before this court, Thapa first challenges the

determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. 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." Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-

We have reviewed the

evidence of record and conclude that Thapa fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. grant the relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Thapa's request for withholding of removal. "Because the burden of proof for Accordingly, we cannot

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)." 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Camara v. Ashcroft,

Because Thapa failed to show

2

that

he

is

eligible

for

asylum,

he

cannot

meet

the

higher

standard for withholding of removal. Finally, Thapa contends that he is entitled to

protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In his brief

before this court, he argues that the government of Nepal is willfully blind to the torture committed by "low-level Maoists" and therefore has "acquiesced" in such torture. jurisdiction to consider this claim because We are without Thapa failed to

challenge the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture on this precise ground before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 We therefore dismiss the

F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). petition for review in part.

Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

3