UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2122
TESFAYE AMARE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-616-184)
Submitted: February 4, 2004 Decided: April 13, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander H. Lubarsky, COMMUNITY LEGAL CENTERS, San Mateo,
California, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael S. Raab, Teal Luthy Miller, Civil Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tesfaye Amare, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s decision
denying Amare’s applications for asylum, withholding from removal
and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. Amare claims
he was denied due process and substantial evidence supports his
claim for asylum. We deny the petition for review.
Amare claims his right to due process was violated when
the immigration judge “took over” the direct examination. We note
that Amare failed to raise this claim to the Board. Accordingly,
we will not review the claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Lonyem v.
United States Att. General, 352 F.3d 1338, 1339 n.5 (11th Cir.
2003); Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 594-95 (3d Cir.
2003).
A determination of eligibility for asylum or withholding
is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We will reverse the
Board “only if ‘the evidence presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002)
- 2 -
(quoting Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d
995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We find the evidence does not compel relief for Amare.
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 -