Yiferu v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BOGALECH DRESSEI YIFERU, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-930-372)
October 31, 2006
January 10, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bogalech Dressei Yiferu, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Daniel Eric Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Bogalech Ethiopia, petitions Appeals Dressei for Yiferu, of a an native order opinion and of citizen Board of of
Judge's (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 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 factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
We have reviewed the evidence of record and
conclude that Yiferu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Yiferu
cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. In addition, we uphold
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).
the IJ's finding that Yiferu failed to establish that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006). 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
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?