Case ID: f-appx_325/html/0234-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henok HABTEMICHAEL-SHIFERAW, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-2119.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 28, 2009.
    Decided: May 26, 2009.
    Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Henok Habtemichael-Shiferaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal.

Habtemichael-Shiferaw challenges the determination that he 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Habtemichael-Shiferaw fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, he 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, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Habtemichael-Shiferaw failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).

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.