Filed: Apr. 16, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1542 MIMI MEDMIM HAILU, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-926-449) Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 16, 2007 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorne
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1542 MIMI MEDMIM HAILU, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-926-449) Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 16, 2007 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1542
MIMI MEDMIM HAILU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-926-449)
Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 16, 2007
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Barry Joyce, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mimi Medmim Hailu, 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 order
denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Hailu
challenges the Immigration Judge’s findings that she was not
credible and did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution.
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 Hailu fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she
seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the Immigration Judge’s denial of
Hailu’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of
proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even
though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who
is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft,
378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Hailu fails to show that
- 2 -
she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that Hailu fails to meet the standard for
relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such
relief, 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) (2004). We find
that Hailu fails to make the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also
deny Hailu’s emergency motion to stay removal. 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 -