George Armanious v. Michael Mukasey

Filing 920090127

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1615

GEORGE NAGIB ARMANIOUS, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

December 31, 2008

Decided:

January 27, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samy Beshay, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: George Nagib Armanious, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's

denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Armanious first challenges the determination that he failed 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 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 Armanious fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. he seeks. Additionally, request for withholding we of uphold the denial "Because of the Armanious's burden of Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that

removal.

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 of for asylum under is necessarily U.S.C.] ineligible § for

withholding

removal

[8

1231(b)(3)." Because

Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).

2

Armanious failed to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Armanious failed to raise any challenges to the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).

3