UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1692
KEIRY SANTOS-SOTO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-236-027)
Submitted: January 24, 2007 Decided: February 12, 2007
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul S. Haar, Pauline M. Schwartz, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL S. HAAR,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Janice K.
Redfern, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Keiry Santos-Soto, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s
denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of removal.
Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined process, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2006), the immigration judge’s decision is
the final agency determination. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
supports the ruling that Santos-Soto 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 Santos-Soto cannot
sustain her burden on the asylum claim, she cannot establish her
entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara, 378 F.3d at 367
(“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).”).
- 2 -
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 -