UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1655
EMEBET BEFIRDU HAILE,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-093-955)
Submitted: February 22, 2008 Decided: May 5, 2008
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Jeffrey S.
Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial Attorney,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emebet Befirdu Haile, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because the Board
affirmed under its streamlined procedure, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)
(2007), we review the decision of the immigration judge. Dankam v.
Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 119 (4th Cir. 2007).
Haile argues that the government of Ethiopia had mixed
motives and that part of its motivation in its actions against her
was to persecute her for the political opinions that the government
imputed to her. However, we need not address that issue, for, in
addition to its finding that the government was entitled to
criminally prosecute Haile for her actions, the immigration judge
found that Haile failed to corroborate her testimony regarding her
experiences with the Ethiopian government. “[E]ven for credible
testimony, corroboration may be required when it is reasonable to
expect such proof and there is no reasonable explanation for its
absence.” Lin-Jian v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 182, 191-92 (4th Cir.
2007). See 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1252(b)(4) (West 2005)
(concerning corroborating evidence).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find that substantial evidence
- 2 -
supports the ruling that Haile failed to submit sufficient
corroboration to establish her claim of past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution, as necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (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, as Haile cannot sustain her burden on the asylum
claim, she cannot establish her entitlement to withholding of
removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (“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)
[(2000)].”).
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s finding that Haile 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) (2007). Upon
reviewing the administrative record, we find that the immigration
judge applied the proper standard to assess the evidence, and that
Haile failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration
court.
- 3 -
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
- 4 -