Dias v. Mukasey , 263 F. App'x 285 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1115
SUBASINGHE NISSANKA DIAS,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-701-881)
Submitted: January 18, 2008 Decided: February 6, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Don W. Pak, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James E. Grimes, Senior
Litigation Counsel, William C. Minick, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Subasinghe Nissanka Nil Rukma Dias, a native and citizen
of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (the “Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).*
We have reviewed the administrative record, the
immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s affirmance thereof,
and find that substantial evidence supports the ruling that Dias
failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and a
protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2005) (stating that
burden of proof is on alien to establish eligibility for asylum);
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Such a
causal nexus is required to support the grant of asylum. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000); Saldarriaga v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 461, 466
(4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1169 (2006). Accordingly,
we deny Dias’ petition for review of this issue.
Moreover, we reject Dias’ contention that the immigration
judge and the Board improperly denied her discretionary asylum.
The grant of discretionary asylum pursuant to
8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(iii) (2005) is only available to an asylum
*
Because Dias does not challenge the Board’s affirmance of the
denial of withholding of removal or CAT relief, we will not
consider the disposition of those claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b);
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
- 2 -
applicant who is not otherwise eligible for asylum because of a
fundamental change in circumstances or because safe relocation
within the applicant’s country of origin is available and
reasonable. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(I), (iii) (2005). Because
there was no finding that Dias had suffered past persecution, but
that changed circumstances or safe, reasonable relocation within
Sri Lanka prohibited her from receiving a grant of asylum, relief
under this regulation was simply not available.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. 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 -