Hailegeorgis v. Mukasey , 274 F. App'x 311 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1847
SENAIT HAILEGEORGIS,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A99-544-519)
Submitted: April 7, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, ESQUIRE, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Sherrie Waldrup, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Senait Hailegeorgis, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s order finding her removable and denying her application for
asylum, withholding from removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).* Hailegeorgis challenges the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the
Board. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for
review.
We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if it
is 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 “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 quotations
and citations omitted).
Having reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s
decision, we find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the
Board, and the ruling that Hailegeorgis failed to establish past
*
Because Hailegeorgis did not challenge the denial of
withholding of removal or relief under the CAT in her brief, those
claims are not preserved for review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b);
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
- 2 -
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as
necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C.A.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(I), (ii) (West 2005) (providing that the burden of
proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (same). Because the record does not
compel a different result, we will not disturb the Board’s denial
of Hailegeorgis’ application for asylum.
Accordingly, we deny the 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
- 3 -