Tewodros Abayneh v. Michael Mukasey, No. 08-1155 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1155 TEWODROS G. ABAYNEH, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: October 16, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Solomon Bekele, LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tewodros G. Abayneh, 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 his applications for relief from removal. Abayneh first challenges the determination failed to establish eligibility for asylum. of a determination denying eligibility for that he To obtain reversal 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. (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Abayneh fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Abayneh cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 1999); INS v. Finally, we uphold the finding below that Abayneh failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because 2 the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3

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.