UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1739

SANAM THAPA, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: July 22, 2009 Decided: August 10, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion. 

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, LAW OFFICE OF VISUVANATHAN 

RUDRAKUMARAN, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Michael F. 

Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, 

Jr., Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

 Sanam Thapa, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions 

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s 

denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

 Before this court, Thapa first challenges the 

determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for 

asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying 

eligibility for 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. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the 

evidence of record and conclude that Thapa fails to show that 

the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot 

grant the relief that he seeks. 

 Additionally, we uphold the denial of Thapa’s request 

for 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). Because Thapa failed to show 

2 
3 

that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher 

standard for withholding of removal. 

 Finally, Thapa contends that he is entitled to 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his brief 

before this court, he argues that the government of Nepal is 

willfully blind to the torture committed by “low-level Maoists” 

and therefore has “acquiesced” in such torture. We are without 

jurisdiction to consider this claim because Thapa failed to 

challenge the denial of his request for protection under the 

Convention Against Torture on this precise ground before the 

Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 

F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore dismiss the 

petition for review in part. 

 Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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 IN PART

AND DISMISSED IN PART