UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1303
DA RUI LI,
Petitioner,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-639-478)
Submitted: October 15, 2007 Decided: October 25, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New York, for Petitioner. David V.
Bernal, Assistant Director, Jennifer Paisner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Da Rui Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, 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, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Li challenges the
determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for
asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was
so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and
conclude that Li fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Li’s request for
withholding of removal. “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).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Li fails to show that he is
eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
- 2 -
Li also seeks protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Because he failed to raise this claim before the Board,
we find that we have no jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (2000) (“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.”); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d
264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 861 (2005)
(holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument that was
not raised before the Board).
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 -