UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1626
ABOUBACAR MATTO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-466-445)
Submitted: April 9, 2004 Decided: April 30, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph M. Kum, AMOROW & KUM, P.A., Takoma Park, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C.
Walters, Assistant Director, Margaret K. Taylor, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Aboubacar Matto and his wife and child, all natives and
citizens of Niger, petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of Matto’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.
Matto 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 Matto’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
Matto seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Matto’s application for withholding of removal. The standard for
withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting
- 2 -
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 Matto fails to show that he is
eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
Finally, we conclude that Matto has failed to prove that
it is more likely than not that he would be subjected to torture
upon his return to Niger, 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 Matto failed to show
a “clear probability of persecution” or to show that it is “more
likely than not” that he would face torture if returned to Niger.
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 -