UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1816
ALEM TESFAYE KEBEDE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-476-407)
Submitted: February 11, 2004 Decided: February 27, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S.
Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ana Maria Kocur, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alem Tesfaye Kebede, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of
her application for asylum. We have reviewed the administrative
record and the immigration judge’s decision, designated by the
Board as the final agency determination, and find that substantial
evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Kebede
failed to establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of
future persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating that the burden of proof
is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). We will reverse the
Board only if the evidence “‘was so compelling that no reasonable
fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’”
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84). We have reviewed the immigration
judge’s credibility determinations and find them supported by
specific, cogent reasoning and therefore entitled to substantial
deference. See Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989).
Thus, the administrative record supports the immigration judge’s
conclusion that Kebede failed to establish her eligibility for
asylum.
- 2 -
We deny Kebede’s 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 -