UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1370

MESSAY TESFAYE TESEMA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: October 10, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason A. Dzubow, DZUBOW, SARAPU & PILCHER, PLLC, Washington, 

D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Kelly J. 

Walls, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Messay Tesfaye Tesema, 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. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of 

fact, including findings on credibility, 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 
3

eligible for asylum 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 finding that Tesema 

failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded 

fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (2006) (providing that an asylum 

applicant must establish that the protected ground asserted “was 

or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the 

applicant”). We therefore uphold the denial of Tesema’s 

requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See Camara v. 

Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) (“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, Tesema 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 
4

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). 

We therefore 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