Amlesom v. Ashcroft , 101 F. App'x 417 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2018
ABREHET A. AMLESOM,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-343-081)
Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 29, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Christopher C. Fuller, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Lyle D. Jentzer, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Abrehet A. Amlesom, a female native and citizen of
Eritrea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under
the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture, and voluntary
departure. We deny the petition for review.
On appeal, Amlesom raises challenges to 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). See also Blanco de
Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 284 (4th Cir. 2004)
(immigration judge’s denial of asylum upheld “unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”).
Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the
evidence of record and conclude that Amlesom fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant
the relief Amlesom seeks.
- 2 -
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Amlesom’s applications for withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for withholding
of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of
persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987).
To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant
must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she
would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Based on our review of the
record, we find that Amlesom has failed to meet either one of these
standards.
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
- 3 -