Hailu v. Gonzales ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1075
MISTIR HAILU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-379-828)
Submitted: March 9, 2007 Decided: March 28, 2007
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
René E. Browne, Michaelynn R. Ware, HOGAN & HARTSON, L.L.P.,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, James Hunolt, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Sara Ann Ketchum, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mistir Hailu, 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 order on remand denying her
requests for asylum and withholding of removal. In her petition
for review, Hailu 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 [she] 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 Hailu fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she
seeks.
Because Hailu 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). See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367
(4th Cir. 2004). Since substantial evidence supports the
conclusion that Hailu 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 -