Tesfaye Woldegiyorgis v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1171 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1171 TESFAYE WORKENEH WOLDEGIYORGIS, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 20, 2012 Decided: October 12, 2012 Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zewdu A. Derseh, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. Julius, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nicole R. Prairie, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tesfaye Workeneh Woldegiyorgis, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals immigration ( Board ) judge s withholding of denial removal, Against Torture. and dismissing 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 are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. (2006). Legal issues to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) are reviewed the [Board] s de novo, affording appropriate deference [Immigration and regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This court will reverse the Board only if the Nationality Act] interpretation and any of the attendant 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, 316, 296 F.3d 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, [t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum 2 is conclusive unless manifestly abuse of discretion. contrary to the law and an 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 evidence supports the agency s finding that Woldegiyorgis failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded therefore fear uphold of the future denial withholding of removal. persecution of his in requests Ethiopia. for asylum We and See id. at 367 ( 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). ). Additionally, Woldegiyorgis challenges the denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for such protection, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of showing it is more likely than not that he or she would be removal. tortured if removed to the 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2012). proposed country of Based on our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of his request for relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review). 3 Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because 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 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.
