UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2511
TAHA ABDIN MOHAMED ARSAD,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-492-707)
Submitted: September 24, 2004 Decided: October 27, 2004
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Falls Church,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Margot L.
Nadel, Trial Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Taha Abdin Mohamed Arsad, a native and citizen of Sudan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his
application for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board ruled
that Arsad failed to present sufficient corroborative evidence in
support of his claim. Arsad contends that his testimony was
credible and corroborated and was therefore sufficient. 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
Arsad fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Nor can Arsad show that he 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 reject Arsad’s arguments that he was denied due
process at the hearing before the immigration judge. “In order to
prevail on a due process challenge to a deportation or asylum
- 2 -
hearing, an alien must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any
such violation.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir. 2002).
The asylum applicant must show “that better procedures are likely
to have made a difference in the outcome of his hearing.” Id. at
324. Arsad fails to show such prejudice.
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 -