Mawerdi Abdurehman v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MAWERDI AHMED ABDUREHMAN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
March 16, 2009
April 22, 2009
Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert A. Remes, CARLINER & REMES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Mawerdi Ethiopia, Ahmed for Abdurehman, review of a an native order her and of citizen Board from of of the
immigration judge's order finding her removable and denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). * Abdurehman
challenges the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board, and challenges the Board's review of the immigration judge's ruling as violative of due process.
After a careful review of the record, we deny the petition for review. We will uphold an adverse credibility determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006), and reverse the Board's
decision "only if the evidence presented . . . was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." Cir. 2002) (internal the Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th quotation marks and citations and the omitted). Board's
Because Abdurehman did not challenge the denial of withholding of removal or relief under the CAT in her brief, these claims are not preserved for review. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
immigration judge's adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the Board, and the ruling that Abdurehman failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), (ii) (2006) (providing that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008) (same). compel a different result, we Because the record does not not disturb the Board's
denial of Abdurehman's application for asylum. We further find we lack jurisdiction to consider
Abdurehman's due process claim, predicated on the "garbled and unclear" hearing transcript. An alien is required to exhaust
administrative remedies as to each claim in order to preserve judicial review. (3rd Cir. 2003). Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 594-95 When the parties fail to raise issues before
the Board, the court lacks jurisdiction to review them due to failure to exhaust "all administrative remedies." 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (2006); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). Thus, because Abdurehman failed to challenge
the quality of the hearing transcript on appeal to the Board, we lack jurisdiction to consider it in this petition for review. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?