George Nagib Armanious v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1615
GEORGE NAGIB ARMANIOUS,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 31, 2008 Decided: January 27, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samy Beshay, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G.
Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
George Nagib Armanious, a native and citizen of Egypt,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Armanious first challenges the determination that he
failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an
alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and
conclude that Armanious fails to show that the evidence compels
a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Armanious’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). Because
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Armanious failed to show that he is eligible for asylum, he
cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
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
∗ Armanious 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 of 3 --