UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2386
ZEWDI ARAIA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-092-162)
Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant
Director, Susan K. Houser, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Zewdi Araia, 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, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the
petition for review.
Araia 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 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 Araia fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
Araia seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Araia’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 Araia fails to show she is eligible
- 2 -
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 -