UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1655
MOSAZGHI SIMON,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 04-1784
MOSAZGHI SIMON,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-494-518)
Submitted: March 18, 2005 Decided: April 7, 2005
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Garfield, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GARFIELD, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Larry P. Cote, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Mosazghi Simon, a native and
citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture,* and an order
denying his motion to reopen the Board’s decision. To obtain
reversal of the Board’s determination denying eligibility for
asylum 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 decision of the
Board and the evidence of record and conclude that Simon fails to
show the evidence compels a contrary result.
Nor can Simon show he was entitled to withholding of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000). “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).
*
Simon raises no claim on appeal regarding the Convention
Against Torture. Therefore, he has abandoned this claim. See
United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004);
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
- 3 -
Simon also challenges the Board’s denial of his motion to
reopen. Our review of the denial of a motion to reopen is
extremely deferential, and the decision will not be reversed absent
abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004) (providing grant
or denial of motion to reopen is in the discretion of the Board);
Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). Such motions
are disfavored. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). We have
reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board did
not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
We deny the petitions for review in these cases. 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.
PETITIONS DENIED
- 4 -