UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1850
MOHAMMED RENU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-167-508)
Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 25, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fitzgerald Lewis, Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant
Director, Danielle Franco, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mohammed Renu, a native and citizen of Bangladesh,
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.
Renu disputes the IJ’s negative credibility finding and
asserts 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
Renu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Moreover, we find that Renu’s challenge to the IJ’s negative
credibility finding is without merit. See Figeroa v. INS, 886
F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we cannot grant the
relief that Renu seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Renu’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 Renu fails to show he is eligible
for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of
removal.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny
Renu’s motion to strike 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 -