UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2002
MICHAEL TSIGE,
Petitioner,
versus
U. S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT, United States Attorney General,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-377-318)
Submitted: March 18, 2003 Decided: May 5, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, UBOM, WHITE, & ROBERTS, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Anh-Thu Mai, Mary Jane Candaux, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Tsige, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
denying his application for asylum and withholding of deportation.
We have reviewed the administrative record, the Board’s order and
the IJ’s decision and find substantial evidence supports the
Board’s conclusion that Tsige failed to establish a well-founded
fear of persecution necessary to qualify for relief from
deportation. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (2002). We conclude the
record supports the Board’s conclusion that Tsige failed to
establish his eligibility for asylum.
The standard for receiving withholding of deportation is “more
stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d
198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for withholding must
demonstrate a clear probability of persecution. INS v. Cardoza-
Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Tsige has failed to
establish refugee status, he cannot satisfy the higher standard for
withholding of deportation.
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We deny the
motion to file an addendum with additional documents. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2