UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1817
BIRHANE KFLOM MOGES,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A45-677-931)
Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 7, 2005
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward N. Leavy, LEAVY & FRANK, L.L.C., Bethesda, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V.
Bernal, Assistant Director, Jamie M. Dowd, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Birhane Kflom Moges, 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, Moges 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 Moges’ 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).
*
Moges 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 -