UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2423
FESSEHAIE ASMARE MITIKU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-844-547)
Submitted: October 13, 2006 Decided: November 7, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Solomon Bekele, LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michele Y. F.
Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Fessehaie Asmare Mitiku, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Mitiku challenges
the finding that he failed to meet his burden of proof to qualify
for asylum. We will reverse this decision only if the evidence
“was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to
find the requisite fear of persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d
316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). We have reviewed the evidence of record, and
conclude that substantial evidence supports the holding that Mitiku
failed to show past persecution or the well-founded fear of future
persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006) (stating that the burden of proof is on
the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same).
Moreover, since Mitiku cannot sustain his burden on the
asylum claim, he cannot establish his entitlement to withholding of
removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004)
(“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
- 2 -
ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.]
§ 1231(b)(3).”).
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Mitiku 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) (2006). Mitiku failed to make the
requisite showing before the immigration judge.
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 -