UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2371
MIMMI KIFLE SHEWAGA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-610-711)
Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: May 17, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Norah Ascoli Schwartz, Senior
Litigation Counsel, John S. Hogan, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mimmi Kifle Shewaga, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
decision affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s denial of
her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.*
On appeal, Shewaga 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 Shewaga fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant
the relief that Shewaga seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Shewaga’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
*
The immigration judge and the BIA denied relief under the
United Nations’ Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) in their
respective decisions. However, as the Government correctly notes,
Shewaga never applied for protection under CAT during her
litigation below, nor does she raise any substantive claim on
appeal. Accordingly, we consider only the denial of her
applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
- 2 -
“a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Shewaga fails to show that she is
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 -