UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1739
SANAM THAPA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 22, 2009 Decided: August 10, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, LAW OFFICE OF VISUVANATHAN
RUDRAKUMARAN, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Michael F.
Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina,
Jr., Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sanam Thapa, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Before this court, Thapa first 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 Thapa 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 Thapa’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 Thapa failed to show
2
that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
Finally, Thapa contends that he is entitled to
protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his brief
before this court, he argues that the government of Nepal is
willfully blind to the torture committed by “low-level Maoists”
and therefore has “acquiesced” in such torture. We are without
jurisdiction to consider this claim because Thapa failed to
challenge the denial of his request for protection under the
Convention Against Torture on this precise ground before the
Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); Massis v. Mukasey, 549
F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore dismiss the
petition for review in part.
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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 IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
3