Jino v. Mukasey , 284 F. App'x 18 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2001
AYNALEM MARKETY JINO,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 19, 2008 Decided: July 10, 2008
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director,
Brianne Whelan Cohen, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aynalem Markety Jino, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of
her applications for relief from removal.
Jino first challenges the determination that she failed
to establish 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 Jino fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to
qualify for asylum, Jino cannot meet the more stringent standard
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, we uphold the finding below that Jino failed to
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured if removed to Ethiopia. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).
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 -