UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

VARATHARAJAH SIVASAMBO, Petitioner,

v. No. 99-1306

JANET RENO, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-413-647)

Submitted: August 17, 1999

Decided: September 24, 1999

Before ERVIN,* HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, LAW OFFICE OF VISUVANATHAN RUDRAKUMARAN, New York, New York, for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michelle E. Gorden, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wash- ington, D.C., for Respondent. _________________________________________________________________ *Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to

(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Varatharajah Sivasambo seeks a review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying relief on his applica- tion for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board's determina- tion that Sivasambo is not eligible for asylum must be upheld unless that determination is "manifestly contrary to law." See

(b)(4)(C) (West 1999). The Board concluded that Sivasambo failed to meet his burden of proving a well-founded fear of persecu- tion on account of protected grounds if he were returned to Sri Lanka. Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is with- out reversible error.

The abuse suffered by Sivasambo while detained by the Sri Lankan police does not form a sufficient basis for a grant of asylum arising solely from the severity of past persecution. See Baka v. INS,

(10th Cir. 1992) (quoting Rivera-Cruz v. INS,

(5th Cir. 1991)) (holding that to establish such eligibil- ity, an alien must show past persecution so severe that repatriation would be inhumane). Furthermore, Sivasambo failed to establish that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of pro- tected grounds if he is returned to Sri Lanka. Because Sivasambo did not establish eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the higher stan- dard for withholding removal. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,

(1987).

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi- als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro- cess.

AFFIRMED

2