UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1882
ADEN MEKONNEN MEDHANA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-340-647)
Submitted: November 8, 2004 Decided: November 19, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel N. Omwenga, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Brenda M. O’Malley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Aden Mekonnen Medhana, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of asylum,
withholding of deportation, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.* The immigration judge concluded that, because of
changed conditions in Ethiopia, Medhana did not have a well-founded
fear of persecution or entitlement to asylum based on past
persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (2004); Gonahasa v. INS,
181 F.3d 538, 541-42 (4th Cir. 1999). We have reviewed the
administrative record and the immigration judge’s decision and find
that the ruling of the immigration judge, affirmed by the Board, is
supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
In addition, we uphold the denial of Medhana’s
application 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).
*
Medhana asserts no arguments regarding the Convention Against
Torture in this Court.
- 2 -
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 -