UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1436
AZEB YIGALEM,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-795-046)
Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, Office of Immigration
Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Azeb Yigalem, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s denial
of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
On appeal, Yigalem raises challenges to the immigration
judge’s determination that she failed to establish her eligibility
for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying
eligibility for relief, 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
evidence of record and conclude that Yigalem fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant
the relief Yigalem seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Yigalem’s request for withholding of removal. To qualify for
withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear
probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430-31 (1987). 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). Because Yigalem fails to show that she
is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
- 2 -
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 -