UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2517
TIGIST HAILU TESFAYE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-221-287)
Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: September 8, 2004
Before WIDENER, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, David V. Bernal, Assistant
Director, Margaret K. Taylor, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tigist Hailu Tesfaye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order dismissing the appeal and finding she failed to meet her
burden of proof with respect to her request for asylum,
withholding from removal, or withholding under the Convention
Against Torture.
On appeal, Tesfaye challenges the Board’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 record and conclude
Tesfaye fails to show the evidence compels a contrary result.
Additionally, we uphold the Board’s denial of Tesfaye’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 Tesfaye fails to show 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 -