Meshesha v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1457
BIRTUKAN GEBREMARIAM MESHESHA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 17, 2008 Decided: February 9, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason A. Dzubow, MENSAH, BUTLER & DZUBOW, PLLC, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Margaret A. O’Donnell, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Birtukan Gebremariam Meshesha, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Before this court, Meshesha challenges the
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
[s]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 Meshesha fails to show
that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that she seeks.
We therefore deny the petition for review. ∗ We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
∗
Meshesha fails to challenge the denial of her requests for
withholding of removal or protection under the Convention
Against Torture. She has therefore waived appellate review of
these claims. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7
(4th Cir. 2004) (finding that failure to raise a challenge in an
opening brief results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards
v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999)
(same).
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3