UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1145
INDRYAS LEMMA WOLDIE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-640-617)
Submitted: October 16, 2006 Decided: October 25, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen T. Chema II, RITZERT & LEYTON, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, James A.
Frederick, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Indryas Lemma Woldie, 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 decision,
which denied his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Woldie challenges the
determination 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 Woldie fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he
seeks.
We therefore 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
*
Woldie does not challenge the denial of his requests for
withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against
Torture in his petition for review. He has therefore waived
appellate review of these claims. See Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -