UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1432
TIGIST GEBRETSADIK,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-901-304)
Submitted: April 16, 2004 Decided: June 30, 2004
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Carolyn M. Piccotti, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tigist G. Gebretsadik, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board). The Board affirmed the decision of
the immigration judge finding Gebretsadik ineligible for asylum
relief and withholding of removal, concluding that the alien had
not produced evidence from which it could reasonably be concluded
that any harm inflicted on her was motivated by one of the five
grounds protected under the asylum laws of this country.
To obtain reversal of a determination of noneligibility
for asylum, 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 record and the
Board’s decision and hold that Gebretsadik fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result.
Additionally, we uphold the Board’s denial of
Gebretsadik’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 Gebretsadik fails to show 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 -