UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1767
LILYANA LIM,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-058-964)
Submitted: December 6, 2004 Decided: January 4, 2005
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony M. Briggs, Jr., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan F. Potter, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lilyana Lim, a native and citizen of Indonesia and a
Chinese-Christian, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal
and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the
petition for review.
In her petition for review, Lim 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 Lim fails to show
the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot
grant the relief she seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Lim’s request for withholding of removal. “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). Because Lim fails to show she is
- 2 -
eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.*
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
*
Lim does not challenge the denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture.
- 3 -