UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1606

ASNAKECH A. ALEMU,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: October 9, 2013 Decided: October 30, 2013

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Asnakech A. Alemu, Petitioner Pro Se. Nicole N. Murley, 

Jonathan Aaron Robbins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Asnakech Asefa Alemu, a native and citizen of 

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

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of her 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.

We must affirm a determination regarding eligibility 

for asylum or withholding of removal if it is supported by 

substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 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). We 

review legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate deference to 

the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality 

Act] and any attendant regulations.” 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 eligible for asylum 
3

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 adverse credibility 

finding. We further conclude that substantial evidence supports 

the agency’s finding that Alemu failed to present sufficient 

independent evidence of persecution, notwithstanding the adverse 

credibility determination, as discussed in Camara v. Ashcroft, 

378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore uphold the 

denial of Alemu’s requests for asylum and withholding of 

removal. See id. at 367 (“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, Alemu challenges the denial of her

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) (2013). Based on our review 

of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports 
4

the denial of relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 

(4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review). 

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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED