Tahiru Bah v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
TAHIRU BAH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
June 15, 2009
July 27, 2009
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Ann Berlin, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Elizabeth Young, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Tahiru petitions ("Board") for order Bah, review a of native the his and Board citizen of of Sierra Leone,
Immigration from the
judge's order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Bah challenges the Board's finding that he did not establish that he was abducted and forced to work for the Revolutionary United Front ("RUF") on account of his political opinions,
rather than solely as a source of forced labor.
He also argues
that the immigration judge and the Board ignored the evidence that he was persecuted due to his membership in a particular social group to which a pro-government political opinion was imputed. However, because Bah argued only that he was targeted
by the RUF on account of his political opinions, not that he was targeted on account of imputed political opinions arising from his residence in to a particular consider village, this this court claim. lacks See
Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 359 n.2 (4th Cir. 2006); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). When an alien claims asylum or withholding of removal based on fear of persecution by a guerilla group because of a political opinion, the alien must show he is being targeted
because of a political opinion belonging to or being imputed to 2
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-83 (1992).
element is "critical" in order to show eligibility for asylum or withholding from removal. We have Id. at 483. the administrative record and the
immigration judge's decision and find that substantial evidence supports the ruling that Bah failed to establish his claim of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a for protected asylum. ground, See 8 as necessary § to establish (2007)
(stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). on the asylum Moreover, as Bah cannot sustain his burden he cannot establish his 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) [(2000)]."). We also find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's finding that Bah fails 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 3
(2007). that assess
Upon the the
reviewing immigration evidence,
administrative applied the
record, proper to
before the immigration court. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We
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?