Yohannes Korcha v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1830

YOHANNES BEKELE KORCHA; YETIMWORK LEMMA KABTYIMER,

Petitioners,

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: April 6, 2012

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICES OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, Joseph D.
Hardy, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Yohannes Bekele Korcha and Yetimwork Lemma Kabtyimer,

both natives and citizens of Ethiopia, petition for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the

Immigration Judge’s denial of Korcha’s applications for relief

from removal.

Petitioners challenge the determination that the lead

applicant, Korcha, 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 Petitioners’ contentions on appeal and conclude that

the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Petitioners thus fail to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Korcha

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).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED