UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1991
KIRIL GEORGIEV VUKOV,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-243-363)
Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 6, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicolette Glazer, LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. GLAZER, Century City,
California, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Margaret Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew B.
Berry, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kiril G. Vukov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
The Board’s determination that an alien is not eligible
for asylum must be upheld unless that determination was “manifestly
contrary to law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(C) (2000). We will
reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so compelling that no
reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002)
(quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992)).
We have reviewed the administrative record, the
immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order and find
substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Vukov failed to
establish that he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of his membership in a
particular social group. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating
that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility
for asylum); Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483 (same). We find we
lack jurisdiction to consider Vukov’s argument that he meets the
requirements for asylum on account of his political opinion. See
- 2 -
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267
n.3 (4th Cir. 2004).
Next, we uphold the Board's denial of Vukov’s application
for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of
removal is “more stringent than that for asylum eligibility.”
Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for
withholding must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution.
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Vukov failed
to establish refugee status, he cannot satisfy the higher standard
necessary for withholding.
Furthermore, we conclude substantial evidence supports
the determination that Vukov did not establish it was more likely
than not that he would be tortured if removed to Bulgaria, see 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004), and thus, that Vukov’s petition for
protection under the CAT was properly denied. Finally, we conclude
Vukov’s due process claims are without merit because he has failed
to demonstrate any prejudice. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320
(4th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we deny Vukov’s 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 -