Asegedech Mesfin Adoye v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 4th Cir. 2002 quoting Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1715
ASEGEDECH MESFIN ADOYE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-230-108)
Submitted: January 26, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director,
William C. Erb, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*Adoye does not challenge the denial of withholding from
removal or withholding under the Convention Against Torture.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Asegedech Mesfin Adoye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
A determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum
must be upheld unless that determination is “manifestly contrary to
law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(C) (2000). We will reverse only “if
‘the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’”
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal
quotation marks omitted)). We have reviewed the evidence of record
and conclude Adoye fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief Adoye
seeks.*
Accordingly, we 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

-- 2 of 2 --