Barahona-Padilla v. Mukasey , 272 F. App'x 231 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1495
OSCAR ALEXANDER BARAHONA-PADILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-113-190)
Submitted: March 20, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linda Hanten, HARRIGAN & HANTEN, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oscar Alexander Barahona-Padilla, a native and citizen of
Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) order dismissing Barahona-Padilla’s appeal of the
immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, which was
construed to request withholding of removal and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).*
We have reviewed the administrative record, the
immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s affirmance thereof,
and find that substantial evidence supports the ruling that
Barahona-Padilla failed to establish a nexus between the past
persecution he sustained and the political opinion he asserts his
persecutors imputed to him. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007)
(stating that burden of proof is on alien to establish eligibility
for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)
(same). Such a causal nexus is required to support the grant of
asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000); Abdel-Rahman v.
Gonzales, 493 F.3d 444, 450-51 (4th Cir. 2007); Saldarriaga v.
Gonzales, 402 F.3d 461, 466 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S.
1169 (2006).
*
Because Barahona-Padilla does not challenge the Board’s
affirmance of the denials of asylum based on his membership in a
particular social group, withholding of removal, or CAT relief, we
will not consider the disposition of those claims. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th
Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. 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 -