Coulibaly v. Gonzales , 232 F. App'x 325 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1809
BASSOUALIHAN COULIBALY,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A98-394-919)
Submitted: April 20, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Greg D. Mack, Senior
Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bassoualihan Coulibaly, a native and citizen of Mali,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s
denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because the Board
affirmed under its streamlined process, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)
(2006), the immigration judge’s decision is the final agency
determination. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir.
2004).
Coulibaly challenges the immigration judge’s finding that
his testimony was not credible and that he otherwise failed to meet
his burden of proving his eligibility for asylum. We will reverse
this decision only if the evidence “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 and citations omitted), and we uphold
credibility determinations if they are supported by substantial
evidence. Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
supports the adverse credibility finding and the determination that
Coulibaly failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution as necessary to establish eligibility
- 2 -
for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the
burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for
asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same).
Moreover, as Coulibaly cannot sustain his burden on the asylum
claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to withholding of
removal. See Camara, 378 F.3d 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) [(2000)].”). In addition, we
uphold the finding that Coulibaly failed to establish that it was
more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Mali.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).
Accordingly, we deny Coulibaly’s 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 -