UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1976

ASFAW HAILEMARIAM LUBIE,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 20, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Falls Church, Virginia, for 

Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. 

Wernery, Assistant Director, Janice K. Redfern, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Asfaw Hailemariam Lubie, 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.

In his petition for review, Lubie raises several 

claims in his brief that essentially boil down to a claim that 

he established before the immigration judge and the Board that 

his real or imputed political opinion was one central reason 

that he was terminated from his job at the ETC and was the 

subject of an arrest warrant. The Immigration and Nationality 

Act authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any 

refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006). It defines a refugee as a 

person unwilling or unable to return to his native country 

“because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on 

account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 

1101(a)(42)(A) (2006) (emphasis added). 

Following the passage of the REAL ID Act, asylum 

applicants such as Lubie who filed their applications after May 

11, 2005, must establish that the protected ground asserted “was 

or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the 
3

applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (2006). Based on our 

review of the record, we agree that Lubie failed to establish 

that he was either terminated from his job or subjected to an 

arrest warrant on account of a protected ground. Instead, the 

evidence suggests that Lubie was fired and became the subject of 

possible criminal prosecution because of his involvement in the 

failed customer care and billing project at the ETC. 

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Lubie’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). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.*

PETITION DENIED

 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.

 * Lubie has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of 

his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See

Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) 

(finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief 

results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of 

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).