UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1078
SANTOS THAPA-MAGAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 4, 2009 Decided: October 7, 2009
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, LAW OFFICE OF VISUVANATHAN
RUDRAKUMARAN, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Jem C. Sponzo, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Santos Thapa-Magar, 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 order denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Thapa-Magar claims the Board and the immigration judge
erred in finding that he failed to prove that he was persecuted
or that he had a well-founded fear of persecution because of
either the imputation of his family’s political opinion to him
or of his membership in his family, a particular social group.
He further claims that he established entitlement to relief
under the CAT. In addition, Thapa-Magar claims that the
immigration judge denied him due process during the hearing
before the immigration judge. We deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b) (2006). It defines a refugee as a person unwilling or
unable to return to his native country “because of persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006).
“Persecution involves the infliction or threat of death,
torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one
2
of the enumerated grounds . . . .” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d
171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kondakova v. Ashcroft, 383
F.3d 792, 797 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1053
(2005)).
An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2009), and can establish
refugee status based on past persecution in his native country
on account of a protected ground, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
(2009). Regardless of past persecution, an alien can establish
a well-founded fear of future persecution on a protected ground.
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). The
well-founded fear standard contains both a subjective and an
objective component. “The objective element requires a showing
of specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person
in like circumstances to fear persecution.” Id. at 187-88.
“The subjective component can be met through the presentation of
candid, credible, and sincere testimony demonstrating a genuine
fear of persecution. . . . [It] [must have] some basis in the
reality of the circumstances and [be] validated with specific,
concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere irrational
apprehension[.]” Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted; second and third alteration in original).
3
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of
fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the BIA’s
interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations[.]”
Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This
court will reverse the Board only if “the evidence . . .
presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
On this record, the evidence was not so compelling
that no reasonable factfinder would fail to find the requisite
fear of persecution. Moreover, Thapa-Magar has not shown that
it is more likely than not that he will be tortured when he
returns to Nepal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009).
Finally, Thapa-Magar was not denied due process when the
immigration judge sustained an objection to a question on the
ground that it was asked and answered.
4
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
5