UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1910
AIMEE BATUMANISA BAZAKALA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (A76-450-009)
Submitted: January 21, 2004 Decided: February 3, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, John M. McAdams, Jr.,
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Aimee Batumanisa Bazakala, a native and citizen of the
Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. For the
reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
Bazakala asserts that she established her eligibility for
asylum. 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 Bazakala fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
Bazakala seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Bazakala’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 (1987). Because Bazakala fails to show she is
eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny
Ashcroft’s motion for summary affirmance and 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 -