UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1606
ASHA HASSEN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-473-551)
Submitted: December 8, 2004 Decided: January 3, 2005
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard S. Bromberg, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD S. BROMBERG,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Thomas K. Ragland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Asha Hassen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the immigration judge’s 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, the
immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order and find
substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Hassen 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 Hassen’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
- 2 -
Hassen failed to establish refugee status, she cannot satisfy the
higher standard necessary for withholding.
Furthermore, we conclude substantial evidence supports
the determination that Hassen did not establish it was more likely
than not that she would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia, see 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004), and thus, that Hassen’s petition for
protection under the CAT was properly denied.
Accordingly, we deny Hassen’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 -