Sylvie Meyet v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 227, 231 4th Cir. 2007 citing Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2284
SYLVIE MEYET,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-290-013)
Submitted: February 16, 2007 Decided: March 19, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew R.
Oakes, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Sylvie Meyet, a native and citizen of Gabon, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of
her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. We treat the immigration
judge’s reasoning as that of the Board’s in our review. Haoua v.
Gonzales, 472 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004)).
Meyet challenges the Board’s finding that her testimony
was not credible and that she otherwise failed to meet her burden
of proving her 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
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
supports the adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Meyet
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

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum);
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). Moreover,
as Meyet cannot sustain her burden on the asylum claim, she cannot
establish her entitlement to withholding of removal. See Camara,
378 F.3d at 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).”).
Meyet did not present an argument concerning the denial
of protection under the Convention Against Torture to the Board.
We lack 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)).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Meyet’s challenge to
the denial of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (2000)
(“No court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a
request for an order of voluntary departure . . . .”); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2000) (“[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to
review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section
. . . 1229c [the section governing voluntary departure].”); see
also Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 193 (4th Cir. 2004)
(“Section 1229c specifically precludes review of a denial of a

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
request for voluntary departure . . . . Likewise, the general
judicial review provision precludes review of orders granting
voluntary departure.”).
Accordingly, we deny Meyet’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

-- 4 of 4 --