Gebremeskel v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2342
MICHAEL TEFFERA GEBREMESKEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 7, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem C.
Sponzo, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Teffera Gebremeskel, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Before this court, Gebremeskel 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 Gebremeskel fails to show
that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
find that substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum
relief.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Gebremeskel’s
request for withholding of removal. “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 under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).”
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because
2
Gebremeskel failed to show that he is eligible for asylum, he
cannot meet the higher standard 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
*
Gebremeskel does not challenge the denial of his request
for protection under the Convention Against Torture in his brief
before the court. In any event, the court lacks jurisdiction
over any such challenge in light of Gebremeskel’s failure to
raise a Convention Against Torture claim before the Board. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006) (“A court may review a final order
of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all
administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”);
Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding
that we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument not raised
before the Board).
3