UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2427
ASHVINKUMAR RASIKLAL PATEL,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-165-832)
Submitted: May 11, 2005 Decided: May 23, 2005
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Frank, Newark, New Jersey, for Petitioner. Marsha B. Liss,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ashvinkumar Rasiklal Patel petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming and
adopting the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).*
A determination of noneligibility for withholding must be
upheld if supported by substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992). We will reverse only “if ‘the evidence presented by the
petitioner 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 Huaman-Cornelio v.
Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir.
1992)(internal quotation marks omitted)). To qualify for
withholding of removal, Patel must show a clear probability of
persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion. Rusu, 296 F.3d
at 324 n.13 (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). We
find substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.
Protection under the CAT is generally granted in the form
of withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2004). An
*
Patel does not challenge the specific finding he was not
eligible for asylum.
- 2 -
applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Again, we find the Board’s finding is
supported by substantial evidence.
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 -