UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1770
JOSEF BOTHA; J.B.; Z.B.; AMANDA BOTHA; J.H.B.,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-547-608; A95-547-609; A95-547-610; A95-547-611; A79-
546-059)
Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 22, 2005
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Parastoo G. Zahedi, LAW OFFICES OF PARASTOO G. ZAHEDI, Vienna,
Virginia, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Margaret K. Taylor,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Josef Botha, his wife Amanda, and their three daughters,
all citizens of South Africa, petition for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion
the immigration judge’s order denying their applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.* In their petition for review, the Bothas
challenge the immigration judge’s determination that they failed to
establish their eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a
determination denying eligibility for asylum, an alien “must show
that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable
fact finder 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 Bothas fail
to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly,
we cannot grant the relief they seek.
Nor can the Bothas show that they are entitled to
withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000).
“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
*
The Bothas do not argue their entitlement to protection under
the Convention Against Torture on appeal, and thus waive the issue.
See United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir.
2004); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th
Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.]
§ 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
2004).
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 -