Eskedar Teshome-Gebreegziabher v. Michael Mukasey, No. 08-1060 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 16, 2008.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1060 ESKEDAR TESHOME-GEBREEGZIABHER, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 29, 2008 Decided: October 30, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and Claude M. HILTON, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason A. Dzubow, MENSAH, BUTLER & DZUBOW, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Stuart S. Nickum, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eskedar Teshome-Gebreegziabher, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge s denial of her applications for relief from removal. Teshome challenges the determination that she 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. 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Teshome fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. 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 - 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.