UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1105
MILLISSA MANDANI BASSANT,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-343-004)
Submitted: July 31, 2003 Decided: September 12, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Robert D.
McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Nelda C. Reyna, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Millissa Nandani Bassant, a native and citizen of Trinidad and
Tobago, petitions this court for review of a final order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the
immigration judge’s denial of 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 decision that Bassant failed to establish
her eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (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 Bassant seeks.
The standard for gaining withholding of removal 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 Bassant failed to establish
she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding.
Accordingly, we deny Bassant’s petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3