UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2019
NESRIA H. ABDELA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-600-684)
Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 23, 2004
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Andrew M. Eschen, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Nesria H. Abdela, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
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.
Abdela asserts that she established 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 Abdela fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
Abdela seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Abdela’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 Abdela fails to show she is eligible
for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of
removal.
- 2 -
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 -