Bizuneh v. Gonzales ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1240
MAMIE GOLA BIZUNEH,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-292-283)
Submitted: December 18, 2006 Decided: January 16, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Laurie Snyder, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mamie Gola Bizuneh, 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 requests for asylum and withholding of removal.
In her petition for review, Bizuneh challenges the
immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish her
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 Bizuneh fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that she seeks.
Because Bizuneh failed to establish that she had a well-
founded fear of persecution, she cannot meet the higher standard
required for withholding of removal as set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) (2000). Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th
Cir. 2004). Since substantial evidence supports the conclusion
that Bizuneh is ineligible for asylum, she likewise fails to
qualify for withholding of removal.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -