Addis Bekele v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 471 F. App'x 126 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1429
ADDIS YILMA BEKELE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 27, 2012 Decided: April 9, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Solomon Bekele, LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON & ASSOCIATES, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
Michael P. Lindemann, Sr., Chief, National Security Unit,
Ethan B. Kanter, Deputy Chief, National Security Unit, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Addis Yilma Bekele, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order finding that he was statutorily ineligible for
asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), but granting him deferral or
removal under the CAT. We deny the petition for review.
Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the BIA’s
interpretation of the INA and any attendant regulations[.]” Li
Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008)
(citation omitted). This court will reverse the Board only if
“the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84
(1992); see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
Because the Board affirmed the immigration judge’s order and
supplemented it, both decisions are subject to judicial review.
Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 511 n.8 (4th Cir. 2007).
Aliens who have engaged in terrorist activities or are
members of a terrorist organization may be statutorily precluded
2
from seeking several forms of relief from removal, including
asylum, withholding from removal, and Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”) protection in the form of withholding, but remain
eligible for deferral of removal under the CAT. See Haile v.
Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing statutory
and regulatory regimen).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
finding that the Oromo Liberation Front (“OLF”) was a terrorist
organization before, during and after Bekele provided material
support. The record does not compel a finding that Bekele
showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the OLF ceased
its terrorist activities for the brief period it was aligned
with the transitional government and while Bekele was a member.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s conclusion
that Bekele was not eligible for asylum, withholding from
removal and withholding under the CAT was supported by the
record and was not legal error. Therefore, 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