UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1763
PETROS HAILE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A74-961-941)
Submitted: July 30, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Payne, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., College Park, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Norah
Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, John C. Cunningham,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Petros Haile, 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 (IJ) decision
to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we
deny the petition for review.
Haile disputes the IJ’s conclusion that he failed to meet
his evidentiary burden to qualify 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 Haile
fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that Haile seeks.
Additionally, we reject Haile’s contention that the
Board’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision violated his rights
under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Blanco de
Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 280-83 (4th Cir. 2004).
We therefore 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