Chacon-Sorto v. Gonzales , 232 F. App'x 326 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1825
ALBA ELSY CHACON-SORTO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A98-122-648)
Submitted: June 18, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Goren, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GOREN, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Angela N. Liang, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alba Elsy Chacon-Sorto, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
supports the ruling that Chacon-Sorto failed to establish a nexus
between any alleged persecution and a protected ground as necessary
to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
(2006) (stating that burden of proof is on alien to establish
eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483
(1992) (same). Moreover, as Chacon-Sorto cannot sustain her burden
on the asylum claim, she cannot establish her entitlement to
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).”).
We also find that Chacon-Sorto fails to meet the standard
for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such
relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than
- 2 -
not that he or he would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). Chacon-
Sorto fails to make this requisite showing.
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 -