Desta v. INS, (4th Cir. 1999)
Linked as:
Text
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2078 ELIZABETH DESTA, Petitioner, versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A74-638-996)
Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: May 27, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, UBOM, WHITE & ROBERTS, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Division, Michelle Gluck, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mary
Jane Candaux, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DE-
PARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM
Elizabeth Desta seeks a review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying relief on her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The Board’s determination that Desta is not eligible for asylum must be upheld if the determination is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” 8 U.S.C. 1105a(a)(4) (1994). The decision may be reversed only if the evidence presented by Desta was such that a reasonable fact finder would have to conclude that the requisite persecution or fear of persecution existed. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). The Board concluded Desta failed to meet her burden of proving she was persecuted on account of protected grounds. Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Because Desta failed to show entitlement to asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding deportation. See INS v. CardozaFonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430-32 (1987).
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. 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. AFFIRMED
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Code - Title 8: Aliens and Nationality - 8 USC 1105 - Sec. 1105. Liaison with internal security officers; data exchange
- U.S. Supreme Court - INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992)
- U.S. Supreme Court - INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
