Anaraki v. Ashcroft ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2429
PARIVASH ZOLFAGHARI ANARAKI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-617-256)
Submitted: July 30, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andres Cayetano Benach, MAGGIO KATTAR, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Norah
Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Cindy S. Ferrier, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Parivash Zolfaghari Anaraki petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming the
immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture.
We have reviewed the administrative record, the Board’s
order, and the immigration judge’s decision and find substantial
evidence supports the conclusion that Anaraki 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) (2003) (stating that the burden of proof is on the
alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (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 do not find the record so compelling as to reverse the
Board. Accordingly, we deny Anaraki’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 -