Case Name: Asnakech A. ALEMU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-30
Citations: 545 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 13-1606
Parties: Asnakech A. ALEMU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 545
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Asnakech A. ALEMU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1606.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 9, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 30, 2013.
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.
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (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 [Boardj'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, 112 S.Ct. 812; 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 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 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.