Andualem v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2198
EHITEMARIAM TSEHAY ANDUALEM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-224-544)
Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty,
United States Attorney, Anita C. Snyder, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ehitemariam Tsehay Andualem, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.* The Board affirmed the ruling of the immigration judge
that Andualem was not a credible witness and did not sustain her
burden of proof.
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 Andualem fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result.
Nor can Andualem show that she was entitled to
withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000).
“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
*
Andualem raises no claim on appeal regarding the Convention
against Torture. Therefore, she has abandoned this claim. See
United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004);
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
- 2 -
ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.]
§ 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
2004).
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 -