Woldetsadik v. Mukasey , 283 F. App'x 102 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1100
SURAFEL B. WOLDETSADIK,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-1644
SURAFEL B. WOLDETSADIK,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 11, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Solomon Bekele, LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Joan H. Hogan, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Surafel B. Woldetsadik, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
filed petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) orders adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from removal
and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and
denying his motion to reopen. We deny the petitions for review.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a) (2000). The INA defines a refugee as a person unwilling
or unable to return to his native country “because of persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000). An applicant can
establish refugee status based on past persecution in his native
country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
(2008). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can establish
a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground.
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004).
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating his
eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008); Gandziami-
Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2006). A
determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if
supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a
- 3 -
whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 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.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding
that Woldetsadik’s testimony and evidence was problematic and he
failed to provide reasonably available corroborative evidence.
Because he failed to provide corroborative evidence that appeared
to be available, the Board denied his applications for asylum and
withholding from removal. The record does not compel a different
result. Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of his
applications for asylum and withholding from removal.
We also find substantial evidence supports the Board’s
denial of his application for relief under the CAT. Woldetsadik
did not establish his opposition party membership and it appears
his father, who was allegedly a target of the Ethiopian government
because of his political activities, had not been tortured since he
returned to Ethiopia.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008); Barry v. Gonzales, 445
F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24
(1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). The
- 4 -
denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme
deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening
and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v.
INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).
We find the Board did not abuse its discretion.
Woldetsadik failed to establish why he could not have received
certification of his opposition party membership prior to his
hearing. We also find the fact that his brother was granted asylum
not material to his claim. Finally, evidence of changed country
conditions did not supplant the finding that he failed to establish
membership in an opposition political party while in Ethiopia.
We deny the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 5 -