UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2182
SIDIKI A. CHAMOKO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-269-549)
Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: July 7, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jing Tan, LAW OFFICES OF TAN & ASSOCIATES, Rockville, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Larry D.
Adams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sidiki A. Chamoko, a native and citizen of Togo,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.* The Board, while finding
that the application was timely filed and was not frivolous, found
that the immigration judge was correct in holding Chamoko did not
sustain his burden of proof and persuasion for the relief he
sought.
Chamoko challenges the Board’s finding that his testimony
was not credible, and that he otherwise failed to meet his burden
of proof to qualify for asylum. We will reverse this decision 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) (internal quotations
and citations omitted), and uphold credibility determinations if
they are supported by substantial evidence. See Tewabe v.
Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006).
*
As Chamoko’s brief raised no claims concerning the denial of
withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against
Torture, any such claims are waived. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
Board’s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the
adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Chamoko failed to
establish past persecution or well-founded fear of future
persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is
on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Moreover, as
Chamoko cannot sustain his burden on the asylum claim, he cannot
establish his entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“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, 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 -