UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1654
MINGA GUY TSHILEMBI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States of America,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-220-625)
Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Minga Guy Tshilembi, Petitioner Pro Se. Calvin McCormick,
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Thomas Ward
Hussey, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Victor Matthew Lawrence, Michelle
Elizabeth Gorden, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Minga Guy Tshilembi, a native and citizen of the
Democratic Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. Tshilembi challenges the IJ’s finding that he failed
to present credible testimony and thus did not meet his burden of
proof to qualify 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.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and
conclude that the IJ’s negative credibility findings are supported
by specific, cogent reasons. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th
Cir. 1989). Accordingly, Tshilembi fails to show that the evidence
compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum on
this ground, Tshilembi cannot meet the higher standard to qualify
for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th
Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction over Tshilembi’s challenge
to the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture
because he failed to properly exhaust this claim in his appeal to
the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft,
362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed, 73
U.S.L.W. 3135 (U.S. Aug. 23, 2004) (No. 04-256).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -