Henok Habtemichael-Shiferaw v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090526

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2119

HENOK HABTEMICHAEL-SHIFERAW, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted:

April 28, 2009

Decided:

May 26, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington,

for Petitioner. Michael F. General, Daniel E. Goldman, T. Cygnarowicz, OFFICE OF D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Henok Habtemichael-Shiferaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for relief from removal. Habtemichael-Shiferaw challenges the determination To obtain

that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum.

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). conclude that INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

We have reviewed the evidence of record and fails to show that the

Habtemichael-Shiferaw

evidence compels a contrary result. for asylum, he cannot meet the more

Having failed to qualify stringent standard for

withholding of removal.

Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th

Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Habtemichael-Shiferaw failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal

argument

because

2

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

PETITION DENIED

3