Tesfaye Woldegiyorgis v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1171

TESFAYE WORKENEH WOLDEGIYORGIS,

Petitioner,

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: September 20, 2012 Decided: October 12, 2012

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zewdu A. Derseh, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Derek C.
Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nicole R. Prairie, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Tesfaye Workeneh Woldegiyorgis, 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 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 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 agency’s finding that

Woldegiyorgis failed to establish either past persecution or a

well-founded fear of future persecution in Ethiopia. We

therefore uphold the denial of his 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, Woldegiyorgis challenges the denial of

his 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) (2012). Based on our review

of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports

the denial of his request for relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales,

495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of

review).

3
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