Asfaw Hailemariam Lubie v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1976
ASFAW HAILEMARIAM LUBIE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 20, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, Falls Church, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S.
Wernery, Assistant Director, Janice K. Redfern, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Asfaw Hailemariam Lubie, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Lubie raises several
claims in his brief that essentially boil down to a claim that
he established before the immigration judge and the Board that
his real or imputed political opinion was one central reason
that he was terminated from his job at the ETC and was the
subject of an arrest warrant. 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 Lubie 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (2006). Based on our
review of the record, we agree that Lubie failed to establish
that he was either terminated from his job or subjected to an
arrest warrant on account of a protected ground. Instead, the
evidence suggests that Lubie was fired and became the subject of
possible criminal prosecution because of his involvement in the
failed customer care and billing project at the ETC.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Lubie’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).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.*
PETITION DENIED
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.
* Lubie has 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 --