UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2304
HAILU HABTE BAKO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-219-095)
Submitted: May 25, 2005 Decided: June 7, 2005
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Payne, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., College Park, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A.
Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Alfred S. Irving, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Hailu Habte Bako, 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.* Bako challenges the Board’s
ruling that he did not establish his eligibility for asylum. We
will reverse the Board’s asylum ruling “only if ‘the evidence
presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296
F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Huaman-Cornelio v. Bd.
of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal
quotation marks omitted)). We have reviewed the record and the
Board’s decision, and conclude that Bako fails to demonstrate that
the evidence compels a different result.
Bako also complains that the immigration judge denied his
due process rights by refusing to allow him to present evidence
that might entitle him to asylum based solely on the severity of
past persecution, under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(A) (2005). We
conclude that this claim entitles Bako to no relief because he has
failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Rusu, 296 F.3d at 320.
*
As Bako does not challenge the denial of withholding of
removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture on appeal,
those issues are not before us.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny Bako’s 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 -