UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1430
ROZA HASSEN MOHAMMED,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-506-876)
Submitted: January 24, 2005 Decided: February 9, 2005
Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy L. McKinney, IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Margaret Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Roza Hassen Mohammed, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s
denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.* The Board
affirmed the ruling of the immigration judge that Mohammed was not
a credible witness and did not sustain her burden of proof.
Mohammed contends that her testimony was credible and corroborated
and was therefore sufficient to establish eligibility.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Mohammed fails to show that the evidence compels
a contrary result.
Nor can Mohammed show that she was entitled to
withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000).
*
Mohammed seeks to argue that the immigration judge erred in
denying her Convention Against Torture claim solely on the basis of
a negative credibility finding. However, as Mohammed did not raise
this issue before the Board, we lack jurisdiction to consider the
argument because Mohammed has not exhausted “all administrative
remedies.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d
264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 2005
U.S.L.W. 35839 (U.S. January 10, 2005) (No. 04-256).
- 2 -
“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).
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 -