UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1872
ALIAKSEI BABAYED; OLEYSA NOVIKOVA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
Submitted: September 19, 2011 Decided: October 3, 2011
Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linda Hanten, HARRIGAN & HANTEN, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jamie M.
Dowd, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew N. O’Malley, Trial
Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Aliaksei Babayed, a native and citizen of Belarus, and
his wife, Oleysa Novikova, a native and citizen of Russia
(collectively “Petitioners”), 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 and withholding of removal. Babayed 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). This court will reverse
the Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so
compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at
2
483-84; see Rusu v. 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 further conclude that Babayed failed to present
sufficient independent evidence of persecution, notwithstanding
the adverse credibility determination, as discussed in Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore
uphold the denial of the Petitioners’ requests for asylum and
withholding of removal. See id. at 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).”).
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
3