UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1606
ASNAKECH A. ALEMU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 9, 2013 Decided: October 30, 2013
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Asnakech A. Alemu, Petitioner Pro Se. Nicole N. Murley,
Jonathan Aaron Robbins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Asnakech Asefa Alemu, 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 denial of her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the
petition for review.
We must affirm a determination regarding eligibility
for asylum or withholding of removal if it is supported by
substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative
findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled
to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We
review legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate deference to
the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality
Act] and any attendant regulations.” Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d
685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the Board
only if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v.
INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore,
“[t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum
2
is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an
abuse of discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600
(4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
finding. We further conclude that substantial evidence supports
the agency’s finding that Alemu failed to present sufficient
independent evidence of persecution, notwithstanding the adverse
credibility determination, as discussed in Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore uphold the
denial of Alemu’s requests for asylum and withholding of
removal. See id. at 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).”).
Additionally, Alemu challenges the denial of her
request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. To
qualify for such protection, a petitioner bears the burden of
proof of showing “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) (2013). Based on our review
of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports
3
the denial of relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124
(4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review).
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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4