Case ID: f-appx_137/html/0603-01.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

Metasebya Kassa MEKONEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-1237.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2005.
    Decided June 30, 2005.
    Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Keith S. Blair, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Metasebya Kassa Mekonen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

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, 488-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Mekonen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Mekonen cannot meet the higher standard to qualify 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 Board’s finding that Mekonen failed to establish that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005).

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