Soliman v. Holder ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1943
BOLA KAMEL SHAHAT SOLIMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 11, 2010 Decided: April 13, 2010
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samy Beshay, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Kimberly A. Burdge, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bola Kamel Shahat Soliman, a native of Nigeria and a
citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a), (b) (2006). It defines a refugee as a person
unwilling or unable to return to his native country “because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006).
“Persecution involves the infliction or threat of death,
torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one
of the enumerated grounds[.]” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177
(4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). Persecution is “the infliction of harm or suffering
by the government, or persons the government is unwilling or
unable to control, to overcome a characteristic of the victim.”
Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 436 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
2
An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2009), and can establish
refugee status based on past persecution in his native country
on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
(2009). “An applicant who demonstrates that he was the subject
of past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of
persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.
2004). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected
ground. Id.
“Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not
that her life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
removal because of her race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Gomis v.
Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, 2010 WL 58386 (U.S.
Jan. 11, 2010) (No. 09-194). “This is a more stringent standard
than that for asylum . . . . [and], while asylum is
discretionary, if an alien establishes eligibility for
withholding of removal, the grant is mandatory.” Gandziami-
Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2006)
(internal citations omitted) (alteration added).
3
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 are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2006). This court will reverse the Board only if “the evidence
. . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Because the Board added its own reasoning
when it adopted the immigration judge’s decision, this court
will review both decisions. Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505,
511 n.8 (4th Cir. 2007).
We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s
finding that Soliman failed to show his claim of past
persecution was as a result of the Egyptian government directing
such persecution or because the government was unable or
unwilling to control those persons Soliman claimed had
persecuted him. We also find substantial evidence supports the
finding that Soliman did not establish a well-founded fear of
persecution. We further find Soliman did not challenge the
4
finding that he could escape the persecution by relocating
within Egypt. *
Because the record does not compel a different result,
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
*
Soliman does not challenge the denial of relief under the
CAT. As such, the claim is abandoned. See Yousefi v. INS, 260
F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001).
5