UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1335
YOHANNES GEBREIZBABHER HADGU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-290-146)
Submitted: October 24, 2005 Decided: November 4, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Michelle Gorden Latour, Office of Immigration Litigation, Maureen
T. Casey, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yohannes Gebreizbabher Hadgu, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Hadgu challenges the
immigration judge’s determination, adopted by the Board, that he
failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. 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 Hadgu
fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief he seeks.
We also uphold the denial of Hadgu’s request for
withholding of removal. “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). Because Hadgu fails to show that he
- 2 -
is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
Additionally, we find that substantial evidence supports
the finding that Hadgu fails to meet the standard for relief under
the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an
applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he
or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We conclude that Hadgu
failed to make the requisite showing below.
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 -