Muluneh v. Mukasey, No. 07-1357 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1357 ASAMENEW SOLOMON MULUNEH, Petitioner, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-941-878) Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: December 5, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas A. Elliot, Fabienne Chatain, Thomas H. Tousley, ELLIOT & MAYOCK, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, J. Max Weintraub, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Asamenew Ethiopia, Solomon petitions Immigration Appeals for Muluneh, review ( Board ) of a an native order dismissing his and of citizen the appeal of Board of from the immigration judge s decision denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Muluneh challenges the determination that he failed to establish his 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 Muluneh fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks. We therefore 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 * Muluneh does not challenge the denial of his requests for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture in his petition for review. He has therefore waived appellate review of these claims. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). - 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.
