Bizuneh v. Gonzales, No. 06-1240 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1240 MAMIE GOLA BIZUNEH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-292-283) Submitted: December 18, 2006 Decided: January 16, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Laurie Snyder, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Mamie Gola Bizuneh, 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 her requests for asylum and withholding of removal. In her petition for review, Bizuneh challenges 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). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Bizuneh fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks. Because Bizuneh failed to establish that she had a wellfounded fear of persecution, she cannot meet the higher standard required for withholding of removal as set forth in 8 U.S.C. ยง 1231(b)(3) (2000). Cir. 2004). Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Since substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Bizuneh is ineligible for asylum, she likewise fails to qualify for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions - 2 - 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.
