Sisay Belete v. Eric Holder, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 7, 2011
• Docket: 10-1313
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1313

SISAY AWRARIS BELETE,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: October 18, 2011 Decided: November 7, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Sisay Awraris Belete, a native and citizen of

Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration

Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal.

Belete first challenges the determination that he

failed to establish 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.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84

(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and Belete’s

claims and conclude that Belete fails to show that the evidence

compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum,

Belete cannot meet the more 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 Belete failed to qualify for

protection under the Convention Against Torture. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c) (2011).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED