Loga v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2099
ESAYAS GEBRU LOGA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 29, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Garfield, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID GARFIELD, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel, Pegah Vakili,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Esayas Gebru Loga, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his
applications for relief from removal.
Loga first challenges the determination that he failed
to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a
determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must
show that the evidence 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 Loga fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Loga cannot meet
the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v.
INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,
480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below
that Loga failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2010).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3