Warku v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2095
ANTONIOS ABATE WARKU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 27, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Michael F.
Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden
Latour, Assistant Director, Tracie N. Jones, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonios Abate Warku, 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
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * Warku challenges
the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed
by the Board. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the
petition for review.
We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if
it is supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales,
446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006), and reverse the Board’s
decision “only if the evidence presented . . . was so compelling
that no reasonable fact finder 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).
Having reviewed the administrative record, the Board’s decision,
and the immigration judge’s oral decision, we find that
substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s adverse
*
Because Warku did not challenge the denial of relief under
the CAT in his brief, the claim is not preserved for review.
See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th
Cir. 1999).
2
credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board, and the ruling
that Warku failed to establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution as necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii)
(2006) (establishing that alien bears burden of proof to
demonstrate eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
(2008) (same). Because the record does not compel a different
result, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of Warku’s
application for asylum. Moreover, as Warku cannot sustain his
burden on the asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement
to withholding of removal. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361,
367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“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.”).
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