Muluneh v. Mukasey , 257 F. App'x 633 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-1357
    ASAMENEW SOLOMON MULUNEH,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A97-941-878)
    Submitted:   October 24, 2007             Decided:   December 5, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas A. Elliot, Fabienne Chatain, Thomas H. Tousley, ELLIOT &
    MAYOCK, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
    Assistant Director, J. Max Weintraub, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Asamenew       Solomon   Muluneh,     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 decision denying his requests for asylum,
    withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
    Torture.
    In   his   petition      for   review,    Muluneh       challenges     the
    determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for
    asylum.    To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
    for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he 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).         We have reviewed the evidence of record and
    conclude that Muluneh fails to show that the evidence compels a
    contrary result.       Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he
    seeks.
    We therefore 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
    *
    Muluneh does not challenge the denial of his requests for
    withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against
    Torture in his petition for review.      He has therefore waived
    appellate review of these claims.       See Edwards v. City of
    Goldsboro, 
    178 F.3d 231
    , 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1357

Citation Numbers: 257 F. App'x 633

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/5/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024