UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1923
AMADEU T. PEREIRA-LIMA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-334-495)
Submitted: March 26, 2004 Decided: April 15, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Caldwell, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Carol
Federighi, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Amadeu T. Pereira-Lima, a native and citizen of Brazil,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals adopting the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision to deny
asylum and withholding of removal. For the reasons discussed
below, we deny the petition for review.
Pereira-Lima asserts that he established eligibility for
asylum, contending that he demonstrated past persecution and a
well-founded fear of future persecution in Brazil on account of his
homosexuality. 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 Pereira-Lima fails to show
that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Pereira-Lima’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 Pereira-Lima 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
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 -