Habtamu Geberetensia v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 457 F. App'x 308 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1736
HABTAMU YEMANE GEBERETENSIA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 13, 2011
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Habtamu Yemane Geberetensia, Petitioner Pro Se. Michael
Christopher Heyse, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Habtamu Yemane Geberetensia, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the
petition for review.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of
fact, including findings on credibility, 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
[Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality
Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,
517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). 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.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at
483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an alien is not
2
eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to
the law and an abuse of discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592
F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)
(2006)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
finding. 1 We further conclude that Geberetensia failed to
present sufficient independent evidence of persecution,
notwithstanding the adverse credibility determination, as
discussed in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir.
2004). We therefore uphold the denial of Geberetensia’s
requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. at 367(“Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is
higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be
proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum
is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8
U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”).
Finally, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the finding that Geberetensia failed to meet the
1
We uphold the agency’s use of the written summary of
Geberetensia’s asylum interview as the interview record meets
the “minimum” standard of In re S-S- in that it “contain[s] a
meaningful, clear, and reliable summary of the statements made
by [Geberetensia] at the interview.” In re S-S-, 21 I. & N.
Dec. 121, 124 (B.I.A. 1995).
3
standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To
obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more
likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to
the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)
(2011). We find that Geberetensia failed to make the requisite
showing before the immigration court.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 2 We also
deny the pending motion for assignment of counsel. 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
To the extent that Geberetensia challenges the Board’s
denial of his motion to remand, we have reviewed the denial of
this motion and find no abuse of discretion. See Onyeme v. INS,
146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of
review).
4