UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1729
MEKONNEN HAILE WOLDEMARIAM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 19, 2010 Decided: June 10, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Linda Y.
Cheng, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mekonnen Haile Woldemariam, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Woldemariam first 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 Woldemariam fails to show that the evidence
compels a contrary result. We therefore find that substantial
evidence supports the denial of relief.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Woldemariam’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
2
Woldemariam failed to show that he is eligible for asylum, he
cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
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
∗
Woldemariam failed to challenge the denial of his request
for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has
therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)
(finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief
results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).
3