Case Name: Fuad Reshid HASSEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-10
Citations: 108 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 04-1214
Parties: Fuad Reshid HASSEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
Fuad Reshid HASSEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-1214.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 27, 2004.
Decided: Sept. 10, 2004.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Rena I. Curtis, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fuad Reshid Hassen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004), the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
Hassen asserts that his evidence was sufficient 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 fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Has-sen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
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
As Hassen failed to assert on appeal his entitlement to withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture, those claims are waived. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir. 1999).