UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1198
WEYNSHET ASSEFA GIDEY,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-512-983)
Submitted: August 22, 2005 Decided: September 7, 2005
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty,
United States Attorney, Tara Louise Casey, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Weynshet Assefa Gidey, 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
decision denying her applications for 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 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) (alterations added).
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)
*
This court will not review the Board’s denial of Gidey’s
applications for withholding from removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture because Gidey did not raise specific
issues with respect to those forms of relief in her brief.
- 2 -
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We find there was
no such compelling evidence. Accordingly, we will not reverse the
Board’s decision.
We thus 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 -