Essalam v. Mukasey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2312
DAOUDI SIF ESSALAM,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-1137
DAOUDI SIF ESSALAM,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-451-623)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 20, 2007
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason A. Dzubow, MENSAH, BUTLER & DZUBOW, P.L.L.C., Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Blair T. O’Connor, Senior Litigation Counsel, Surell
Brady, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Daoudi Sif Essalam, a
native and citizen of Morocco, petitions for review of two separate
decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). In No.
06-2312, he challenges the Board’s decision affirming the
immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.* In No. 07-1137, he challenges the Board’s denial of his
motion to reopen and reconsider. We deny both petitions for
review.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for asylum relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he
presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the
evidence of record and conclude that Essalam fails to show the
evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant
the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Essalam’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden
of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even
*
Essalam does not challenge on appeal the denial of protection
under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore find that he
has waived appellate review of this claim. See Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 3 -
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)].” Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Essalam fails
to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
In No. 07-1137, we have reviewed the record and the
Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion
in denying Essalam’s motion to reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2007); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992)
(standard of review of denial of motion to reopen); Jean v.
Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481, 482-83 (4th Cir. 2006) (standard of
review of denial of motion to reconsider). We therefore deny this
petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re
Essalam, No. A96-451-623 (B.I.A. Jan. 30, 2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 4 -