UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1026
TAFESE GEMEDA DIDI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 16, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Israel W. Gobena, GOBENA & ASSOCIATES, Saint Paul, Minnesota,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane
Candaux, Assistant Director, Roseanne M. Perry, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tafese Gemeda Didi, 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 applications for relief from removal.
Didi first challenges the determination that he failed
to establish 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 Didi fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result.
Having failed to qualify for asylum, Didi cannot meet
the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v.
INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,
480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Next, we uphold the finding below
that Didi failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion
in the Board’s denial of Didi’s motion to remand the case to the
Immigration Judge. See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408
(4th Cir. 2005).
2
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