Abikian v. Ashcroft, (4th Cir. 2004)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2326 LILY ABIKIAN, Petitioner, versus

JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General for the

United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-574-387)

Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark J. Shmueli, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant

Director, Joan E. Smiley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lily Abikian, 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

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Abikian raises challenges to the immigration judgeÂ’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 [s]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 Abikian fails to show that the

evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant

the relief that Abikian seeks. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judgeÂ’s denial of AbikianÂ’s request for withholding of removal. The standard for

withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting asylum. Chen v. INS

, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate

“a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza  Fonseca

, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Abikian fails to show that she is

- 3 - 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

---