Court Opinion

ID: 998902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:17:48.583523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:21.275424
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

POMI TEKLE,
Petitioner,

v.
                                                                        No. 98-2180
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A70-795-332)

Submitted: May 18, 1999

Decided: June 11, 1999

Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Mikre Michael Ayele, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank W.
Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Brenda E. Ellison, Senior Litiga-
tion Counsel, Nelda C. Reyna, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pomi Tekle petitions for review of a final order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her application for asylum and
withholding of deportation. Tekle first takes issue with the Board's
finding that past persecution she suffered under the Mengistu regime
in Ethiopia does not warrant a humanitarian grant of asylum. We find
substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that the mis-
treatment experienced by Tekle was not severe enough to grant Tekle
asylum based on past persecution alone. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4)
(1994);* Matter of Chen, 20 I. & N. Dec. 16 (BIA 1989).

Tekle next contends that the Board erred in finding that the pre-
sumption of a well-founded fear of persecution created by her past
persecution in Ethiopia has been rebutted by a showing of a change
in country conditions. We conclude that substantial evidence supports
the Board's finding that the presumption of a well-founded fear of
future persecution created by Tekle's mistreatment under the
Mengistu regime has been rebutted by evidence that Mengistu was
overthrown in May 1991 and a new government established. See 8
C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2) (1998).

Tekle also disagrees with the Board's finding that she failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on her involve-
ment in the opposition group Coalition of Ethiopian Democratic
Forces (COEDF) since her arrival in the United States. After a thor-
ough review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence sup-
_________________________________________________________________

*We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal
Immigration Reform Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)
effective April 1, 1997. Because this case was in transition at the time
the IIRIRA was passed, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable under
the terms of the transitional rules contained in§ 309(c) of the IIRIRA.

                    2
ports the Board's determination that Tekle did not demonstrate a well-
founded fear of persecution on this basis because her involvement in
COEDF has been minimal and she failed to show how the current
government would be aware of her political activities in the United
States. See Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979
F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992). Finally, Tekle's contention that the
Board applied the wrong standard of law and evidence and abused its
discretion is without merit.

We accordingly affirm the Board's order. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3