Case ID: f-appx_124/html/0820-01.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

Samson Bizuwork DEMISSE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-1626.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 11, 2005.
    Decided: April 5, 2005.
    Samuel N. Omwenga, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer J. Keeney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Samson Bizuwork Demisse, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge ruled that Demisse was not a credible witness and did not otherwise sustain his burden of proof.

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 Demisse fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Nor can Demisse show that he was entitled to withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000). “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).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004).

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 
      
       Demisse raises no claim on appeal regarding the Convention against Torture; he also does not challenge the immigration judge's credibility finding. Therefore, he has abandoned these claims. See United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n. 8 (4th Cir.2004); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).