UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1173
MARIAMA DIALLO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-193-264)
Submitted: September 27, 2006 Decided: November 8, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Cindy Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, R.
Alexander Goring, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mariama Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
Diallo challenges the Board’s finding that her testimony
was not credible and that she otherwise failed to meet her burden
of proof to qualify for asylum. We will uphold a negative
credibility determination if it is supported by substantial
evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir.
2006), and reverse the Board’s 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 quotation marks and citations omitted).
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 Diallo failed to
establish past persecution or a 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).
- 2 -
Similarly, because Diallo does not qualify for asylum,
she is also ineligible for withholding of removal. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Finally, substantial
evidence supports the finding that Diallo fails to meet the
standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To
obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more
likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the
proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).
Diallo failed to make the requisite showing.
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 -