UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1171
TESFAYE WORKENEH WOLDEGIYORGIS,
Petitioner,
v.
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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
4