Bizuneh v. Gonzales, (4th Cir. 2007)
Linked as:
Text
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1240
MAMIE GOLA BIZUNEH,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-292-283)
Submitted: December 18, 2006 Decided: January 16, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Laurie Snyder, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Mamie Gola Bizuneh, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the immigration judge's denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of removal.
In her petition for review, Bizuneh challenges the immigration judge's determination that she failed to establish her 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 conclude that Bizuneh fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks.
Because Bizuneh failed to establish that she had a wellfounded fear of persecution, she cannot meet the higher standard required for withholding of removal as set forth in 8U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) (2000). Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Since substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Bizuneh is ineligible for asylum, she likewise fails to qualify for withholding of removal.
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
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - Djenaba Camara, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Respondent., 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004)
- U.S. Supreme Court - INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
