UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2326
LILY ABIKIAN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General for the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-574-387)
Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark J. Shmueli, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant
Director, Joan E. Smiley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lily Abikian, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
On appeal, Abikian 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 Abikian fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant
the relief that Abikian seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Abikian’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 Abikian 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 -