No. 06-1455.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: March 19, 2007.
Decided: March 29, 2007.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-636-992).
Robert L. Oswald, Noto Oswald, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Page 291
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Peter Nwanakhan, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.[*]
Nwanakhan challenges the Board’s finding that his testimony was not credible and that he otherwise failed to meet his burden of proving his eligibility for asylum. We will reverse this decision only if the evidence “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 and citations omitted), and we uphold credibility determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence. Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Nwanakhan failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (same). Moreover, as Nwanakhan cannot sustain his burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to withholding of removal. See 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 under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).
Accordingly, we deny Nwanakhan’s 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.
n. 7 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief results in abandonment of that challenge).