Iryna Sanko v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1556 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1556 IRYNA SANKO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Iryna petitions Sanko, for review a of native the and Board citizen Belarus, Immigration of of Appeals ( Board ) order dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge s order denying removal. * her application for asylum and withholding of Sanko challenges the Board s finding that she failed to establish that the discrimination she faced in Belarus on account of persecution, her or religious that she beliefs has a rose to the well-founded fear persecution if she is returned to Belarus. level of of future 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 establish fear of eligibility future for persecution, asylum. See 8 as C.F.R. necessary § to 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 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). her burden on the asylum Moreover, as Sanko cannot sustain claim, she entitlement to withholding of removal. cannot establish her 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, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
