Soldatov v. Gonzales , 225 F. App'x 162 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1138
ALEXEI VALERI SOLDATOV,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-1885
ALEXEI VALERI SOLDATOV,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-933-454)
Submitted: March 14, 2007 Decided: April 27, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul V. LiCalsi, Jacob Inwald, SONNENSCHEIN, NATH & ROSENTHAL, LLP,
New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Janet
A. Bradley, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Alexei Valeri Soldatov, a
native and citizen of Moldova, seeks to challenge two decisions of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). In No. 06-1138,
Soldatov challenges the Board’s order affirming the immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Because the Board affirmed the immigration judge’s order without
opinion, we treat the immigration judge’s reasoning as that of the
Board’s in our review. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2006); Haoua v.
Gonzales, 472 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 2007).
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. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and
conclude that Soldatov fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he
seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Soldatov’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
- 3 -
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Soldatov fails to show that
he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
Soldatov did not present an argument concerning the
denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture to the
Board. (JA 11-60). This court lacks jurisdiction over any claim
that was not administratively exhausted. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
(2000); Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 359 n.2 (4th
Cir. 2006) (citing Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th
Cir. 2004)).
Finally, in No. 06-1885, Soldatov petitions for review of
a decision of the Board denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and
find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
Soldatov’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006);
Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,
127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 4 -