Muluneh v. Mukasey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1357
ASAMENEW SOLOMON MULUNEH,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-941-878)
Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: December 5, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas A. Elliot, Fabienne Chatain, Thomas H. Tousley, ELLIOT &
MAYOCK, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, J. Max Weintraub, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Asamenew Solomon Muluneh, 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 decision denying his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
In his petition for review, Muluneh challenges the
determination that he failed to establish his 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 Muluneh fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he
seeks.
We therefore 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
*
Muluneh does not challenge the denial of his requests for
withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against
Torture in his petition for review. He has therefore waived
appellate review of these claims. See Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -