UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1914
HA SIM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-485-847)
Submitted: January 26, 2007 Decided: February 16, 2007
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ha Sim, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Tracey Wood, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ha Sim, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of his
requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have reviewed
the administrative record and the Board’s decision and find that
substantial evidence supports the ruling that Sim 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). Moreover, as Sim
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).”).
Although Sim did not present an argument concerning the
denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture to the
Board, the Board found that the record provided no basis for
finding that Sim demonstrated eligibility for protection under the
Convention. Even assuming we have jurisdiction to consider this
- 2 -
claim, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Gandziami-Mickhou v.
Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 359 n.2 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Asika v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004)), we agree with the
Board as to its merits.
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 -