UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1207
DAGME ALEMAYEHU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-227-648)
Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: November 1, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gretchen C. F.
Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E.
Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dagme Alemayehu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board affirming in part the
immigration judge’s order denying his requests for asylum and
withholding of removal.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for asylum 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 Alemayehu fails to show that
the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot
grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Alemayehu’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
Alemayehu fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he 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
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -