Case ID: f-appx_402/html/0784-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Valery Destin Tchoumbo DZEITCHIE, a/k/a Valery Destin Tchoumou Dzeitchie, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-2176.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 4, 2010.
    Decided: Nov. 22, 2010.
    Jason A. Dzubow, Samson Habte, Men-sah & Dzubow, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Nicole J. Thomas-Dorris, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Valery Destín Tchoumbo Dzeitchie, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny it in part.

Dzeitchie first challenges the admission of the results of an overseas investigation into the validity of two summonses allegedly issued by the Cameroonian police. Dzeitchie asserts the investigation violated his right to asylum confidentiality, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.6 (2010), and that the admission of this evidence violated due process. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256-59 (4th Cir.2008).

Neither of these issues was presented to the Board on appeal. Thus, because these arguments are not administratively exhausted and there is no “equitable exception” to the jurisdictional exhaustion requirement, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638, 640 (4th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 736, 175 L.Ed.2d 513 (2009); see also Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 228 (4th Cir.2010) (“The [Board] is entitled to an opportunity to correct any errors that may occur in immigration proceedings, and we lack jurisdiction unless it is given the chance to do so.”), petition for cert. filed, — U.S -, 131 S.Ct. 503, 178 L.Ed.2d 370 (2010).

Dzeitchie next challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board. We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir.2006), and reverse the Board’s decision “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 quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the administrative record, the immigration judge’s oral decision, and the Board’s order, we find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board, and the ruling that Dzeitchie failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(i), (ii) (2006) (establishing that alien bears burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2010) (same). Because the record does not compel a different result, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of Dzeitchie’s application for asylum. Moreover, as Dzeitchie cannot sustain his burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to withholding of removal. 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

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny it in part. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART. 
      
       Because Dzeitchie did not challenge the denial of relief under the CAT in his brief, he has abandoned that issue on appeal. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).