Case Name: Hailu Habte BAKO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-07
Citations: 133 F. App'x 83
Docket Number: No. 04-2304
Parties: Hailu Habte BAKO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 83–84

Head Matter:
Hailu Habte BAKO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2304.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 25, 2005.
Decided: June 7, 2005.
William Payne, Blair & Lee, P.C., College Park, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Alfred S. Irving, Jr., United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hailu Habte Bako, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Bako challenges the Board's ruling that he did not establish his eligibility for asylum. We will reverse the Board's asylum ruling "only if 'the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.' " Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (quoting Huaman-Cornelio v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We have reviewed the record and the Board's decision, and conclude that Bako fails to demonstrate that the evidence compels a different result.
Bako also complains that the immigration judge denied his due process rights by refusing to allow him to present evidence that might entitle him to asylum based solely on the severity of past persecution, under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(A) (2005). We conclude that this claim entitles Bako to no relief because he has failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Rusu, 296 F.3d at 320.
Accordingly, we deny Bako's 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
As Bako does not challenge the denial of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture on appeal, those issúes are not before us.