Girma Gebrie Gebre Giorgis v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1294
GIRMA GEBRIE GEBRE GIORGIS,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 19, 2008 Decided: January 26, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Mona Maria
Yousif, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Girma Gebrie Gebre Giorgis, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision, which denied his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Giorgis challenges the
finding that he failed to show that his political opinion was
“at least one central reason” for the persecution he allegedly
faced in Ethiopia in 2005. The Immigration and Nationality Act
authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2006). It defines a refugee as a person
unwilling or unable to return to his native country “because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006)
(emphasis added). Following the passage of the REAL ID Act,
asylum applicants such as Giorgis who filed their applications
after May 11, 2005, must establish that the protected ground
asserted “was or will be at least one central reason for
persecuting the applicant.” REAL ID Act, § 101(a)(3), codified
at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (2006). Based on our review of
the record, we agree with the finding that Giorgis failed to
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
establish that his political opinion was a central reason for
the threats that he faced in 2005.
Giorgis also argues that he established that he faces
a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned to
Ethiopia based on his political activities here in the United
States. 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 Giorgis fails to show that
the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot
grant the relief that he seeks.
We therefore 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

-- 3 of 3 --