Getahun v. Gonzales , 126 F. App'x 102 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2233
AZEB GETAHUN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-350-662)
Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 13, 2005
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elliott C. Lichtman, Joseph J. Kranyak, LICHTMAN TRISTER & ROSS,
P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden, Senior Litigation
Counsel, John E. Cunningham, III, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Azeb Getahun, 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 order
denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
In her petition for review, Getahun 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 Getahun fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that she seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Getahun’s request for withholding of removal. “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).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Getahun fails to show that
she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
- 2 -
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 -