UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1464
HELENA GARMAI GANT,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A46-478-598)
Submitted: October 20, 2004 Decided: October 29, 2004
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Goren, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GOREN, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Isaac R. Campbell, Office
of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Helena Garmai Gant, a native and citizen of Liberia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her
application for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board
affirmed the ruling of the immigration judge that Gant was not a
credible witness. Gant contends that her testimony was credible
and corroborated and was therefore sufficient to establish
eligibility. 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 Gant fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result.
Nor can Gant show that she was entitled to withholding of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000). “Because the burden of
proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even
though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who
is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
We deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -