Erdilo v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1899
GAZENA ERCHAFO ERDILO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-906-357)
Submitted: April 19, 2006 Decided: May 11, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Hailu, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS HAILU, Arlington, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Larry D.
Adams, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gazena Erchafo Erdilo, 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 denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Erdilo 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 Erdilo fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he
seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Erdilo’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 Erdilo fails to show that
- 2 -
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
*
Erdilo’s brief merely asserts, without supporting argument,
that he seeks review of the immigration judge’s denial of his
request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We
therefore find that he has waived appellate review of this claim.
See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
- 3 -