UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1626
SAMSON BIZUWORK DEMISSE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-877-334)
Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Allen W. Hausman, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Jennifer J. Keeney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Samson Bizuwork Demisse, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the immigration
judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The
immigration judge ruled that Demisse was not a credible witness and
did not otherwise sustain his burden of proof.*
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for 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 evidence of record and
conclude that Demisse fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result.
Nor can Demisse show that 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
*
Demisse raises no claim on appeal regarding the Convention
against Torture; he also does not challenge the immigration judge’s
credibility finding. Therefore, he has abandoned these claims.
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).
- 2 -
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 -