UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1076
ABAKAR ALI MBODOU,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 18, 2008 Decided: August 28, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter T. Ndikum, IMMIGRATION ASSISTANCE CENTER, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director, Carmel A.
Morgan, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Abakar Ali Mbodou, a native and citizen of Chad,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order finding him removable and denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”).* Ali Mbodou challenges the immigration
judge’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board. For
the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review.
We will uphold an adverse 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 presented . . . was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder 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).
Having reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s
decision, we find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the
Board, and the ruling that Ali Mbodou failed to establish past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as
*
Because Ali Mbodou did not challenge the denial of relief
under the CAT in his brief, the claim is not preserved for review.
See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
2
necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii) (2006) (providing that the burden of proof
is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(a) (2008) (same). Because the record does not compel a
different result, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of Ali
Mbodou’s application for asylum. Moreover, as Ali Mbodou cannot
sustain his burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish his
entitlement to withholding of removal. 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.”).
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