UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2342
MELESSE HUNDE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-155-154)
Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: August 9, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Garfield, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID GARFIELD, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Senior
Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Melesse Hunde, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Hunde raises challenges to
the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish
his 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 Hunde fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Hunde’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 Hunde fails to show that he is
- 2 -
eligible 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 -