UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1103
ALAIN BLAISE ETOUNDI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-586-986)
Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant
Director, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alain Blaise Etoundi, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
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.
Etoundi asserts that his testimony was credible and
corroborated and contends that he established his 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 Etoundi fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
Etoundi seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Etoundi’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 Etoundi fails to show he is eligible
- 2 -
for asylum, he 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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -