UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2274
BETELEHEM BALCHA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-089-317)
Submitted: October 11, 2006 Decided: December 4, 2006
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, Alisa B. Klein,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Betelehem Balcha, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, 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, Balcha challenges the
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 [s]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 Balcha fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she
seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Balcha’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 Balcha fails to show that
- 2 -
she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Balcha 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). We find that Balcha failed to
make the requisite showing before the immigration court.
Finally, to the extent that Balcha claims that the
Board’s use of the summary affirmance procedure as set forth at
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2006) violated her rights under the Due
Process Clause, we find that this claim is squarely foreclosed by
our decision in Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 (4th
Cir. 2004). We further find that summary affirmance was
appropriate in this case under the factors set forth in
§ 1003.1(e)(4).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. Balcha’s
motion for stay of removal is denied as moot. 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 -