UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1463
TIRSIT GIDEY,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-602-706)
Submitted: October 20, 2004 Decided: November 23, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Caitlin A. Brazill, CATHOLIC CHARITIES IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Ann
Carroll Varnon, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tirsit Gidey, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of
her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so
compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the administrative record and the
immigration judge’s decision and find substantial evidence supports
the conclusion that Gidey failed to establish the past persecution
or well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating
that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility
for asylum); Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483 (same).
Next, we uphold the Board’s denial of Gidey’s application
for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of
removal is “more stringent than that for asylum eligibility.”
Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for
withholding must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution.
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Gidey failed
- 2 -
to establish refugee status, she cannot satisfy the higher standard
necessary for withholding.
Furthermore, we conclude substantial evidence supports
the IJ’s determination that Gidey did not establish it was more
likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia,
see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2004), and thus, the IJ properly
denied her petition for protection under the CAT.
Finally, Gidey’s claim that the Board’s use of the
summary affirmance procedure under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004)
violated her due process rights is foreclosed by our decision in
Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 2004). In
Blanco de Belbruno, we held that “the BIA’s streamlining
regulations do not violate an alien’s rights to due process of law
under the Fifth Amendment.” Id. at 282-83.
Accordingly, we deny Gidey’s 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 -