Aliaksei Babayed v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A088-269-034,A088-269-035 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998691574].. [10-1872]

Appeal: 10-1872

Document: 26

Date Filed: 10/03/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1872

ALIAKSEI BABAYED; OLEYSA NOVIKOVA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

September 19, 2011

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 3, 2011

HAMILTON,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda Hanten, HARRIGAN & HANTEN, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioners.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jamie M.
Dowd, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew N. O’Malley, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1872

Document: 26

Date Filed: 10/03/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Aliaksei Babayed, a native and citizen of Belarus, and
his

wife,

Oleysa

Novikova,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Russia

(collectively “Petitioners”), petition for review of an order of
the

Board

of

Immigration

Appeals

(“Board”)

dismissing

their

appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of their requests for
asylum

and

withholding

of

removal.

Babayed

is

the

primary

applicant for asylum; the claims of his wife are derivative of
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R.

his application.

§ 1208.21(a) (2011).
A

determination

regarding

eligibility

for

asylum

or

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole.
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

INS v. Elias-

Administrative findings of

fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary.
reviewed
[Board]’s

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).
de

novo,

“affording

interpretation

of

appropriate

the

Legal issues are
deference

[Immigration

and

to

the

Nationality

Act] and any attendant regulations.”

Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,

517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).

This court will reverse

the

.

Board

only

if

“the

evidence

.

.

presented

was

so

compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.”
2

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at

Appeal: 10-1872

Document: 26

Date Filed: 10/03/2011

Page: 3 of 3

483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
Furthermore,

“[t]he

agency

decision

that

an

alien

is

not

eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to
Marynenka v. Holder, 592

the law and an abuse of discretion.’”

F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)
(2006)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that

substantial

finding.

evidence

supports

the

adverse

credibility

We further conclude that Babayed failed to present

sufficient independent evidence of persecution, notwithstanding
the adverse credibility determination, as discussed in Camara v.
Ashcroft,

378

F.3d

361,

370

(4th

Cir.

2004).

We

therefore

uphold the denial of the Petitioners’ requests for asylum and
withholding of removal.

See id. at 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).”).
Accordingly,
dispense

with

oral

we

deny

argument

the

petition

because

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.

PETITION DENIED
3