Habtamu Geberetensia v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 11-1736 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1736 HABTAMU YEMANE GEBERETENSIA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 28, 2011 Decided: December 13, 2011 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Habtamu Yemane Geberetensia, Petitioner Pro Se. Michael Christopher Heyse, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Habtamu Yemane Geberetensia, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals immigration judge s withholding of Against Torture. ( Board ) dismissing denial removal, and of his his appeal requests protection under from for the the asylum, Convention For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review. A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). INS v. Elias- Administrative findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. reviewed [Board] s 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). de novo, affording interpretation of appropriate the Legal issues are deference [Immigration and to the Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the . Board only if the evidence . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, [t]he agency decision 2 that an alien is not eligible for asylum is conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion. Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial finding. 1 present We evidence further sufficient notwithstanding supports conclude that independent the adverse the adverse credibility Geberetensia evidence credibility of failed to persecution, determination, as discussed in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore uphold the denial of Geberetensia s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. at 367 ( Because of the burden of proof for withholding 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). ). Finally, supports the we finding conclude that that Geberetensia 1 substantial failed to evidence meet the We uphold the agency s use of the written summary of Geberetensia s asylum interview as the interview record meets the minimum standard of In re S-S- in that it contain[s] a meaningful, clear, and reliable summary of the statements made by [Geberetensia] at the interview. In re S-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 121, 124 (B.I.A. 1995). 3 standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed (2011). country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) We find that Geberetensia failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 2 deny the pending motion for assignment of counsel. We also 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 To the extent that Geberetensia challenges the Board s denial of his motion to remand, we have reviewed the denial of this motion and find no abuse of discretion. See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review). 4
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.
