Terfe v. Mukasey , 283 F. App'x 157 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1830
NEBIYOU GASHAWTENA TERFE,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 13, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008
Before KING and DUNCAN, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director, Dalin R.
Holyoak, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Nebiyou Gashawtena Terfe, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order finding him removable and denying his
applications for asylum, withholding from removal, and withholding
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Terfe challenges the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, and asserts the
immigration judge ignored or gave insufficient weight to Terfe’s
documentary evidence.* We deny the petition 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) (2007). Without regard to past persecution, an
*
Although Terfe makes passing reference to it in his brief, he
does not present any substantive argument challenging the Board’s
affirmance of the immigration judge’s denial of withholding of
removal or protection under the CAT. Accordingly, those claims
have been abandoned. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d
231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
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) (2007); 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
whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). This
court will reverse the Board “only if the evidence presented by the
petitioner 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 sufficient evidence supports the Board’s adverse
credibility finding and the record does not compel a different
result. Therefore, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of
Terfe’s application for asylum.
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 -