Kerkero v. Gonzales ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1859
FANTU A. KERKERO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-281-611)
Submitted: April 18, 2007 Decided: May 1, 2007
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Solomon Bekele, LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fantu A. Kerkero, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of
her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
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 Kerkero fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Having failed to establish eligibility for
asylum, Kerkero cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for
withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.
1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally,
our review discloses that Kerkero did not show eligibility for CAT
relief because she did not demonstrate that it is more likely than
not that she will be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).
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
- 2 -