Iryna Sanko v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1556
IRYNA SANKO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 20, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Serghei Potorac, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E.
Goldman, Brianne Whelan Cohen, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

PER CURIAM:
Iryna Sanko, a native and citizen of Belarus,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) order dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s
order denying her application for asylum and withholding of
removal.* Sanko challenges the Board’s finding that she failed
to establish that the discrimination she faced in Belarus on
account of her religious beliefs rose to the level of
persecution, or that she has a well-founded fear of future
persecution if she is returned to Belarus. For the reasons set
forth below, we deny the petition for review.
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
supports the ruling that Sanko failed to submit sufficient
corroboration to establish her claim of 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)
(2008) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to
establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
* Sanko did not appeal to the Board the immigration judge’s
denial of her application for protection under the Convention
Against Torture. To the extent she seeks to raise the issue in
this court, we lack jurisdiction to review this claim in the
absence of administrative exhaustion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
(2006).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Moreover, as Sanko cannot sustain
her burden on the asylum claim, she cannot establish her
entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 (“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) [(2006)].”).
Accordingly, 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 --