Mody Desse Sissoko v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2173
MODY DESSE SISSOKO,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 11, 2008 Decided: July 14, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter Nyoh, LAW OFFICE OF PETER NYOH, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Edward E. Wiggers, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Mody Desse Sissoko, a native and citizen of Cote
d’Ivoire, filed a petition for review from the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from
removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a) (2000). The INA defines a refugee as a person unwilling
or unable to return to his native country “because of persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000). An applicant can
establish refugee status based on past persecution in his native
country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
(2008). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can establish
a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground.
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004).
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating his
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008); Gandziami-
Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). A
determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if
supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a

-- 2 of 3 --

*We note Sissoko failed in his brief to this court to
challenge the Board’s order denying withholding from removal and
withholding under the CAT. By failing to raise these issues in his
brief, Sissoko abandoned these issues and waived review. See
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999)
(noting that issues not briefed or argued are deemed abandoned).
We further note Sissoko does not challenge the Board’s finding that
he did not challenge on appeal the immigration judge’s decision to
deny relief under the CAT. This court has noted that “an alien who
has failed to raise claims during an appeal to the [Board] has
waived his right to raise those claims before a federal court on
appeal of the [Board’s] decision.” Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697,
700 (4th Cir. 1990).
- 3 -
whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). This
court will reverse the Board “only if the evidence presented by the
petitioner 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).
We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding
that Sissoko failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded
fear of persecution based on one of the statutorily enumerated
grounds. The record does not compel a different result.
Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of his
applications for relief. *
We deny 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

-- 3 of 3 --