Getachew v. Gonzales ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1164
FIKRE GETACHEW,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-497-592)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 12, 2005
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Hailu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Kenneth L.
Wainstein, United States Attorney, Madelyn E. Johnson, Heather R.
Phillips, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Fikre Getachew, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s
denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because the Board
affirmed under its streamlined process, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)
(2005), the immigration judge’s decision is the final agency
determination. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir.
2004).
Getachew challenges the immigration judge’s finding that
she failed to meet her burden of proof to qualify for asylum. We
will reverse this decision only if the evidence “was so compelling
that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite
fear of persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th
Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citations omitted). We have
reviewed the administrative record and the immigration judge’s
decision and find that substantial evidence supports the conclusion
that Getachew failed to establish past persecution or the well-
founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2005) (stating
that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility
for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)
(same).
- 2 -
We decline to address Getachew’s challenge to the
immigration judge’s credibility determination, as she failed to
raise the claim before the Board to satisfy the exhaustion
requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000). See Asika v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125
S. Ct. 861 (2005). Getachew does not challenge the ruling of the
immigration judge, as affirmed by the Board, on her applications
for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention
Against Torture. Therefore, these claims are abandoned. See
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
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
- 3 -