UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2342

MICHAEL TEFFERA GEBREMESKEL, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

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

Appeals.

Submitted: August 7, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009 

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

Circuit Judge. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney 

General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem C. 

Sponzo, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

 Michael Teffera Gebremeskel, a native and citizen of 

Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration 

judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

 Before this court, Gebremeskel challenges the 

determination that he failed to establish his 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. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the 

evidence of record and conclude that Gebremeskel fails to show 

that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we 

find that substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum 

relief. 

 Additionally, we uphold the denial of Gebremeskel’s 

request for withholding of removal. “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). Because 

2 
3 

Gebremeskel failed to show that he is eligible for asylum, he 

cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. 

 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

 *

 Gebremeskel does not challenge the denial of his request 

for protection under the Convention Against Torture in his brief 

before the court. In any event, the court lacks jurisdiction 

over any such challenge in light of Gebremeskel’s failure to 

raise a Convention Against Torture claim before the Board. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006) (“A court may review a final order 

of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all 

administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”); 

Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding 

that we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument not raised 

before the Board).