UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1407
SERKALEM TEFERI MEKONIN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-079-669)
Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: January 12, 2005
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Earle B. Wilson, Anthony W. Norwood, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Serkalem Teferi Mekonin, 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 and
withholding of removal.
Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined process,
the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004). A determination that
an alien is not eligible for asylum must be upheld unless that
determination is “manifestly contrary to law.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(C) (2000). We will reverse only “if ‘the evidence
presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296
F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Huaman-Cornelio v. BIA,
979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that Mekonin fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary
result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief Mekonin seeks.
Next, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Mekonin’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.
- 2 -
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Mekonin
failed to establish refugee status, she cannot satisfy the higher
standard necessary for withholding.
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
- 3 -