UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1734
PAUL ALFRED BIEN-AIME,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-400-017)
Submitted: January 19, 2005 Decided: February 9, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott H. Christensen, HUGHES HUBBARD & REED, L.L.P., Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Donald E. Keener, Appellate Deputy, Greg D. Mack, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Paul Alfred Bien-Aimé, a native and citizen of Haiti,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (Board)
order denying him asylum and withholding of removal.
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 Bien-Aimé 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 Bien-Aimé’s
application for withholding of removal. The standard for
withholding or 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
Bien-Aimé failed to establish refugee status, he cannot satisfy the
higher standard necessary for withholding.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny Bien-Aimé’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 -