UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1697
MAWERDI AHMED ABDUREHMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 16, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009
Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert A. Remes, CARLINER & REMES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General,
Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mawerdi Ahmed Abdurehman, 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 order finding her removable and denying her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * Abdurehman
challenges the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding,
as affirmed by the Board, and challenges the Board’s review of
the immigration judge’s ruling as violative of due process.
After a careful review of the record, we deny the petition for
review.
We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if
it is supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales,
446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006), and reverse the Board’s
decision “only if the evidence presented . . . 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).
Having reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s
*
Because Abdurehman did not challenge the denial of
withholding of removal or relief under the CAT in her brief,
these claims are not preserved for review. See Edwards v. City
of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
2
decision, we find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by
the Board, and the ruling that Abdurehman failed to establish
past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as
necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii) (2006) (providing that the burden of
proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008) (same). Because the record does not
compel a different result, we will not disturb the Board’s
denial of Abdurehman’s application for asylum.
We further find we lack jurisdiction to consider
Abdurehman’s due process claim, predicated on the “garbled and
unclear” hearing transcript. An alien is required to exhaust
administrative remedies as to each claim in order to preserve
judicial review. Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 594-95
(3rd Cir. 2003). When the parties fail to raise issues before
the Board, the court lacks jurisdiction to review them due to
failure to exhaust “all administrative remedies.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (2006); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3
(4th Cir. 2004). Thus, because Abdurehman failed to challenge
the quality of the hearing transcript on appeal to the Board, we
lack jurisdiction to consider it in this petition for review.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4