UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1881
ABREHET ASFAHA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-355-093)
Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 13, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hargwayne Gegziabhre, St. Paul, Minnesota, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret J. Perry, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Beth S. Liebmann, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Abrehet Asfaha petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting the decision of the
Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny relief from removal. For the
reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
Asfaha first asserts that she demonstrated a well-founded
fear of persecution in Eritrea and Ethiopia and thus established
her 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 Asfaha fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. In addition, we
reject her contention that the IJ erred in finding her to be a
native and citizen of Eritrea. Accordingly, we cannot grant the
relief that Asfaha seeks.
Asfaha next raises for the first time a claim based on
past persecution. She further asserts her entitlement to
withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention
Against Torture, claims that were not raised in her appeal to the
Board from the IJ’s denial of relief from removal. As these claims
have not been properly exhausted, we may not address them in this
appeal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d
697, 700 (4th Cir. 1990).
Finally, Asfaha contends that in adopting the IJ’s
decision, the Board failed to meaningfully and fully address her
appeal. As this claim is merely mentioned in Asfaha’s brief and is
entirely undeveloped, we find that it has been abandoned.
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
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
- 3 -