UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1925
KALKIDAN LEGESSE ASHAGRE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (A78-600-975)
Submitted: February 6, 2004 Decided: March 15, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director,
John S. Hogan, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kalkidan Legesse Ashagre, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
On appeal, Ashagre raises challenges to the immigration
judge’s determination that she failed to establish her eligibility
for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying
eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Ashagre fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant
the relief that Ashagre seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Ashagre’s request 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 Ashagre fails to show that she is
- 2 -
eligible for asylum, she 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 -