UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2058
PATRICK OSIGHALA; JUSTINA OSIGHALA, a/k/a Justina Odisgbe,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 15, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Seguinot, SEGUINOT & ASSOCIATES, PC, Dunn Loring, Virginia,
for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Susan
K. Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel, John J. W. Inkeles, OFFICE
OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Osighala (“Osighala”), and his wife, Justina
Osighala (collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of
Nigeria, petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of their requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. Osighala is the primary applicant for asylum;
the claims of his wife are derivative of his application. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2011).
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
[Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality
Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,
517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). We 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.
2
INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore,
“[t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum
is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an
abuse of discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600
(4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
finding. We therefore uphold the denial of the Petitioners’
requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See 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 under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”). 1
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 2 We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
1
We decline to consider the immigration judge’s and Board’s
alternate finding that, assuming Osighala’s credibility, the
Petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of proving either
past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
2
The Petitioners have failed to raise any challenges to the
denial of their request for protection under the Convention
Against Torture. They have therefore waived appellate review of
this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7
(4th Cir. 2004).
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4