Tahiru Bah v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1873 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1873 TAHIRU BAH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 15, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Ann Berlin, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Elizabeth Young, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tahiru petitions for ( Board ) Bah, order a review native and the Board of dismissing his citizen of appeal of Sierra Immigration from the Leone, Appeals immigration judge s order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Bah challenges the Board s finding that he did not establish that he was abducted and forced to work for the Revolutionary United Front ( RUF ) on account of his political rather than solely as a source of forced labor. opinions, He also argues that the immigration judge and the Board ignored the evidence that he was persecuted due to his membership in a particular social group to which a pro-government political opinion was imputed. However, because Bah argued only that he was targeted by the RUF on account of his political opinions, not that he was targeted on account of imputed political opinions arising from his residence jurisdiction in to a particular consider village, this this latter court lacks claim. See Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 359 n.2 (4th Cir. 2006); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). When an alien claims asylum or withholding of removal based on fear of persecution by a guerilla group because of a political opinion, the alien must show he is being targeted because of a political opinion belonging to or being imputed to 2 him. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-83 (1992). This element is critical in order to show eligibility for asylum or withholding from removal. We have Id. at 483. reviewed the administrative record and the immigration judge s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the ruling that Bah failed to establish his claim of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of eligibility a protected for asylum. ground, See 8 as necessary C.F.R. § to establish 1208.13(a) (2007) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). on the asylum Moreover, as Bah cannot sustain his burden claim, he cannot establish his 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) [(2000)]. ). We also find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge s finding that Bah fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed 3 country of reviewing the immigration evidence, removal. C.F.R. § administrative judge and 8 applied that Bah the 1208.16(c)(2) record, proper failed to we find standard make the (2007). to Upon that the assess the requisite showing before the immigration court. 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 4
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.
