UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2176
VALERY DESTIN TCHOUMBO DZEITCHIE, a/k/a Valery Destin
Tchoumou Dzeitchie,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 4, 2010 Decided: November 22, 2010
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Jason A. Dzubow, Samson Habte, MENSAH & DZUBOW, PLLC,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Nicole J.
Thomas-Dorris, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Valery Destin Tchoumbo Dzeitchie, a native and citizen
of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * For the reasons that
follow, we dismiss the petition for review in part for lack of
jurisdiction and deny it in part.
Dzeitchie first challenges the admission of the
results of an overseas investigation into the validity of two
summonses allegedly issued by the Cameroonian police. Dzeitchie
asserts the investigation violated his right to asylum
confidentiality, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.6 (2010), and that
the admission of this evidence violated due process. See Anim
v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256-59 (4th Cir. 2008).
Neither of these issues was presented to the Board on
appeal. Thus, because these arguments are not administratively
exhausted and there is no “equitable exception” to the
jurisdictional exhaustion requirement, this court lacks
*
Because Dzeitchie did not challenge the denial of relief
under the CAT in his brief, he has abandoned that issue on
appeal. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6
(4th Cir. 1999).
2
jurisdiction to consider them. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006);
Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2008), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct. 736 (2009); see also Kporlor v. Holder, 597
F.3d 222, 228 (4th Cir. 2010) (“The [Board] is entitled to an
opportunity to correct any errors that may occur in immigration
proceedings, and we lack jurisdiction unless it is given the
chance to do so.”), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __
(U.S. May 20, 2010) (No. 09-11574).
Dzeitchie next challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding, as affirmed by the Board. 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 fact finder
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 omitted). Having reviewed the administrative record, the
immigration judge’s oral decision, and the Board’s order, we
find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s
adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board, and the
ruling that Dzeitchie failed to establish past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to
establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii) (2006) (establishing that alien bears
3
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(a) (2010) (same). Because the record does not compel
a different result, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of
Dzeitchie’s application for asylum. Moreover, as Dzeitchie
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 dismiss the petition for review in
part for lack of jurisdiction and deny it in part. 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;
DISMISSED IN PART
4