Sumarlin v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1334
CHELLY SUMARLIN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-254-696)
Submitted: September 19, 2005 Decided: October 26, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard T. Mei, LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD T. MEI, Bethesda, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, Chris K. Gober, Office of Legal Policy,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Chelly Sumarlin, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the ruling of the
immigration judge finding Sumarlin removable and denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.* We deny the petition for
review.
We will reverse a determination denying eligibility for
asylum “only if the evidence presented 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 quotations omitted). Credibility findings are reviewed
for substantial evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an
applicant's testimony on credibility grounds must offer specific,
cogent reasons for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th
Cir. 1989). The immigration judge did so in this case.
We have reviewed the evidence of record and find that
substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion
that Sumarlin failed to establish either past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution. Accordingly, we uphold
*
Sumarlin does not challenge the immigration judge’s denial of
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, this
claim is waived. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241
n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
the immigration judge’s denial of asylum relief, as affirmed by the
Board.
As Sumarlin failed to sustain his burden on the asylum
claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to withholding of
removal. “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).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
2004). Therefore, 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
- 3 -