UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2353
BEREKET HAILU ZERAY,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-930-347)
Submitted: June 16, 2004 Decided: July 7, 2004
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Jason S. Patil, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bereket Hailu Zeray, a native of Ethiopia and citizen of
Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons
discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
Zeray asserts that he established his eligibility for
asylum by showing a well-founded fear of persecution in Eritrea.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for
relief, an alien “must show that the evidence 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 Zeray fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
Zeray seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Zeray’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 Zeray fails to show he is eligible
- 2 -
for asylum, he 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 -