Asnakech Alemu v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1606 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1606 ASNAKECH A. ALEMU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 9, 2013 Decided: October 30, 2013 Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Asnakech A. Alemu, Petitioner Pro Se. Nicole N. Murley, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Asnakech Ethiopia, Asefa petitions Immigration Appeals immigration withholding judge s of for Alemu, review ( Board ) denial removal, Against Torture. and a of native an order dismissing of her and of her the under of from the for the of Board appeal requests protection citizen asylum, Convention For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review. We must affirm a determination regarding eligibility for asylum or substantial withholding evidence on of the removal record if it is considered INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). findings of fact, including findings on supported as a by whole. Administrative credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We review legal issues de novo, affording appropriate deference to the [Board] s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations. 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 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, 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 abuse of discretion. manifestly 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 finding. evidence supports the adverse credibility We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Alemu failed to present sufficient independent evidence of persecution, notwithstanding the adverse credibility determination, as discussed in Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). denial of removal. Alemu s requests for We therefore uphold the asylum and withholding of 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, Alemu challenges the denial of request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. her 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) (2013). proposed country of Based on our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports 3 the denial of relief. See Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review). Accordingly, dispense with contentions are oral we deny argument adequately the petition because presented in the the for facts review. We and legal materials before this 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.
