Pathiranage v. Holder ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1730
NIMAL JAYASIRI VITHANA PATHIRANAGE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 2, 2010 Decided: March 11, 2010
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizaveta Krukova, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Carmel A. Morgan, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Nimal Jayasiri Vithana Pathiranage, a native and
citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s order finding him removable and
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Pathiranage challenges the immigration judge’s adverse
credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board. * For the reasons
set forth below, we deny the petition for review.
We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if
it is supported by substantial evidence, see Dankam v. Gonzales,
495 F.3d 113, 120 (4th Cir. 2007), 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). We have
thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, the immigration
judge’s written decision, and the Board’s order affirming that
decision, and we find that substantial evidence supports the
*
Because Pathiranage does not advance any argument relevant
to the denial of CAT protection, he has abandoned that issue on
appeal. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6
(4th Cir. 1999).
2
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, affirmed by the
Board, and the ruling that Pathiranage failed to establish 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
burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(a) (2009) (same). Because the record does not compel
a different result, we will not disturb the Board’s order
affirming the denial of Pathiranage’s application for asylum.
Moreover, as Pathiranage 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.”).
For the foregoing reasons, 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