UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1560
ETI ZERIHUN YETIMGETA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-617-291)
Submitted: May 19, 2006 Decided: June 8, 2006
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Jonathan S.
Gasser, United States Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Eti Zerihun Yetimgeta, 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
her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
In her petition for review, Yetimgeta challenges the
immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish her
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 Yetimgeta fails
to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly,
we cannot grant the relief that she seeks.
Similarly, because Yetimgeta does not qualify for asylum,
she is also ineligible for withholding of removal. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the finding that
Yetimgeta 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.”
- 2 -
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2() (2005). Yetimgeta failed to make the
requisite showing.
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 -