UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1315
ABEBA ISAK WOLDEMICHAEL,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-902-659)
Submitted: August 9, 2004 Decided: September 14, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant
Director, Carol Federighi, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Abeba Isak Woldemichael, a native and citizen of Eritrea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
On appeal, Woldemichael challenges 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 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 Woldemichael fails to show
that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Woldemichael’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 Woldemichael fails to show she is
eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal. We further find Woldemichael failed to
- 2 -
show eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
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 -