Asfaw Lubie v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-1976 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1976 ASFAW HAILEMARIAM LUBIE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 20, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Janice K. Redfern, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Asfaw Ethiopia, Hailemariam petitions Immigration Appeals immigration for of review ( Board ) judge s withholding Lubie, denial removal, native an of order dismissing of and a his and of his the of Board of from appeal requests protection citizen the for under the Lubie asylum, Convention raises Against Torture. In his petition for review, several claims in his brief that essentially boil down to a claim that he established before the immigration judge and the Board that his real or imputed political opinion was one central reason that he was terminated from his job at the ETC and was the subject of an arrest warrant. Act authorizes refugee. person the Attorney The Immigration and Nationality General to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006). unwilling or unable to confer asylum on any It defines a refugee as a return to his native country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of particular race, social religion, group, or nationality, political membership opinion. 8 in a U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006) (emphasis added). Following the passage of the REAL ID Act, asylum applicants such as Lubie who filed their applications after May 11, 2005, must establish that the protected ground asserted was or will be at least one central 2 reason for persecuting the applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (2006). Based on our review of the record, we agree that Lubie failed to establish that he was either terminated from his job or subjected to an arrest warrant on account of a protected ground. Instead, the evidence suggests that Lubie was fired and became the subject of possible criminal prosecution because of his involvement in the failed customer care and billing project at the ETC. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Lubie s request for withholding of removal. Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum even though the facts that must be proved are the same an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3). Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. * dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED * Lubie has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same). 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.
