UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2326
BOLUMBE HENRI IKETE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-513-634)
Submitted: January 26, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bolumbe Henri Ikete, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bolumbe Henri Ikete, a native and citizen of the
Democratic Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We treat the immigration judge’s reasoning as that of the Board’s
in our review. Haoua v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 227, __, 2007 WL 29463,
*2 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2007) (citing Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004)).
Ikete challenges the immigration judge’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 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 quotations and citations omitted).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
supports the adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Ikete
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for
- 2 -
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). Similarly,
because Ikete does not qualify for asylum, he is ineligible for
withholding of removal. See Camara, 378 F.3d at 367.
Ikete seeks to challenge the immigration judge’s failure
to grant him protection under the Convention Against Torture, a
claim he did not present to the Board. “A court may review a final
order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all
administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” 8
U.S.C.A. § 1252(d)(1) (West 2005). We therefore lack jurisdiction
to consider this issue. 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)). 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 -