Belay v. Ashcroft ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2273
HANA ABEBE BELAY,
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. (A79-468-657)
Submitted: May 17, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director,
John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Hana Abebe Belay, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of her
application for asylum. We have reviewed the administrative record
and the decision of the immigration judge, designated by the Board
as the final agency determination, and hold that substantial
evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Belay
failed to establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of
future persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum.
See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (the burden of
proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (same). 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 Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84). We find no such compelling
evidence.
We deny Belay’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
- 2 -