UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2431
SHITU MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-229-519)
Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Michele Y. F. Sarko, Office of Immigration
Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shitu Mohammed Ibrahim, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) affirming and adopting the immigration judge’s decision
denying asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture.* Finding no error, we deny the
petition for review.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is conclusive if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Our review of the Board’s
“asylum eligibility determination is most narrow . . . [and]
recognizes the respect we must accord the [Board’s] expertise and
its status as the Attorney General’s designee in deportation
decisions.” Lopez-Soto v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 228, 233 (4th Cir.
2004). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We will reverse the
Board “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)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We find there was
*
By not raising the issue in her brief, Ibrahim has abandoned
any challenge to the denial of relief under the Convention Against
Torture.
- 2 -
no such compelling evidence. Accordingly, we will not reverse the
Board’s decision.
“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.]
§ 231(b)(3).” Camara, 378 F.3d at 367. Because Ibrahim is not
eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
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 -