UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1873
TAHIRU BAH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 15, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Ann Berlin, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory
G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery,
Elizabeth Young, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tahiru Bah, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Bah challenges the Board’s finding that he did not establish
that he was abducted and forced to work for the Revolutionary
United Front (“RUF”) on account of his political opinions,
rather than solely as a source of forced labor. He also argues
that the immigration judge and the Board ignored the evidence
that he was persecuted due to his membership in a particular
social group to which a pro-government political opinion was
imputed. However, because Bah argued only that he was targeted
by the RUF on account of his political opinions, not that he was
targeted on account of imputed political opinions arising from
his residence in a particular village, this court lacks
jurisdiction to consider this latter claim. See
Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 359 n.2 (4th Cir.
2006); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004).
When an alien claims asylum or withholding of removal
based on fear of persecution by a guerilla group because of a
political opinion, the alien must show he is being targeted
because of a political opinion belonging to or being imputed to
2
him. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-83 (1992). This
element is “critical” in order to show eligibility for asylum or
withholding from removal. Id. at 483.
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
supports the ruling that Bah failed to establish his claim of
past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground, as necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007)
(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 Bah 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 (“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) [(2000)].”).
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s finding that Bah fails to meet the standard
for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such
relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than
not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
3
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2007). Upon
reviewing the administrative record, we find that the
immigration judge applied the proper standard to assess the
evidence, and that Bah failed to make the requisite showing
before the immigration court.
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
4