Assefa Bekelcha v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1536

ASSEFA ARARSA BEKELCHA,

Petitioner,

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: January 17, 2012 Decided: April 11, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Tim Ramnitz,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Assefa Ararsa Bekelcha, a native and citizen of

Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the

immigration judge’s denial of his 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.

A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or

withholding of removal is affirmed if 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). Legal issues are

reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the

[Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality

Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang 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

2
eligible for asylum 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 Bekelcha failed to present

sufficient independent evidence of his family’s 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 Bekelcha’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).”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. * We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

*
Bekelcha has failed to raise any challenges to 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).

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED