Beraki v. Gonzales, No. 05-2237 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2237 TADDESSEE HAGOS BERAKI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-340-542) Submitted: May 31, 2006 Decided: June 14, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linette Tobin, Mount Ranier, Keisler, Assistant Attorney Litigation Counsel, Rhonda LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. General, James E. Grimes, Senior M. Dent, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Taddessee Hagos Beraki, 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 his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 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. 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Beraki fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Beraki cannot meet the higher standard to qualify 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). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny Beraki s motion to allow attachments to his brief and 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 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.