Valery Dzeitchie v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-2176 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2176 VALERY DESTIN TCHOUMBO Tchoumou Dzeitchie, DZEITCHIE, a/k/a Valery Destin Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 4, 2010 Decided: November 22, 2010 Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason A. Dzubow, Samson Habte, MENSAH & DZUBOW, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Nicole J. Thomas-Dorris, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Valery Destin Tchoumbo Dzeitchie, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) immigration asylum, judge s order dismissing ( IJ ) order withholding Convention Against of removal, Torture his denying and appeal his For the application protection ( CAT ). * from the under reasons for the that follow, we dismiss the petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny it in part. Dzeitchie first challenges the admission of the results of an overseas investigation into the validity of two summonses allegedly issued by the Cameroonian police. asserts the investigation violated his right Dzeitchie to asylum confidentiality, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.6 (2010), and that the admission of this evidence violated due process. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256-59 (4th Cir. 2008). Neither of these issues was presented to the Board on appeal. exhausted Thus, because these arguments are not administratively and jurisdictional there is exhaustion no equitable requirement, * exception this court to the lacks Because Dzeitchie did not challenge the denial of relief under the CAT in his brief, he has abandoned that issue on appeal. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). 2 jurisdiction to consider them. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 736 (2009); see also Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 228 (4th Cir. 2010) ( The [Board] is entitled to an opportunity to correct any errors that may occur in immigration proceedings, and we lack jurisdiction unless it is given the chance to do so. ), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. May 20, 2010) (No. 09-11574). Dzeitchie next challenges the IJ s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board. credibility determination if it is We will uphold an adverse supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006), and reverse the Board s decision only if the evidence presented . . . 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 omitted). Having reviewed the administrative record, the immigration judge s oral decision, and the Board s order, we find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board, and the ruling that Dzeitchie failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded establish fear of eligibility future persecution for asylum. as See necessary 8 to U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii) (2006) (establishing that alien bears 3 burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2010) (same). Because the record does not compel a different result, we will not disturb the Board s denial of Dzeitchie s cannot application sustain his for burden asylum. on the Moreover, asylum as claim, establish his entitlement to withholding of removal. Dzeitchie he cannot Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) ( 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 . . . . ). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for part for lack of jurisdiction and deny it in part. review in 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
