UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1053
SAMRAWIT WOLDE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-381-232)
Submitted: August 22, 2003 Decided: September 2, 2003
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D.
McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans,
Assistant Director, Paul Fiorino, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:
Samrawit Wolde, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s order
denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive
“unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We conclude that the record
supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Wolde failed to
establish her eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a)
(2003); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). As the
decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot
grant the relief that Wolde seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Wolde’s application for withholding of removal. The standard for
withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting
asylum. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To qualify
for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear
probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430-31 (1987). Because Wolde fails to show that she is eligible
for asylum, she 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
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3