UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1959
HAILU SEBSIBE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General for the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-600-206)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: March 16, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director,
S. Nicole Nardone, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Hailu Sebsibe, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”). The order affirmed, without opinion, the
immigration judge's order denying Sebsibe's applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we
deny the petition for review.
Sebsibe challenges the immigration judge's finding that
he failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution. 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 have reviewed
the immigration judge’s decision and the administrative record and
find that the record supports the immigration judge’s conclusion
that although Sebsibe’s testimony was credible, he failed to
establish his eligibility for asylum on a protected ground. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating that the burden of proof is on
the alien to establish his eligibility for asylum); INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). As the decision in this
case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot grant the relief
that Sebsibe seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge's denial of
Sebsibe's application for withholding of removal. The standard for
- 2 -
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 Sebsibe fails to show that he is
eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
Finally, we conclude that Sebsibe has failed to prove
that it is more likely than not that he would be subjected to
torture upon his return to Ethiopia, in violation of the Convention
Against Torture. Based on our review of the record and the
immigration judge’s decision denying relief, we find that Sebsibe
failed to show a “clear probability of persecution” or show that it
is “more likely than not” that he would face torture if returned to
Ethiopia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003) (stating that to
qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture, an
alien must show “it is more likely than not that he . . . would be
tortured if removed to the proposed country 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 -