Gnizako v. Ashcroft ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2452
GENEVIEVE GAIHE GNIZAKO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-356-654)
Submitted: July 14, 2003 Decided: July 24, 2003
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, RONALD D. RICHEY & ASSOCIATES, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Terri Leon-Benner, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Genevieve Gaihe Gnizako, a native and citizen of the Ivory
Coast, petitions this court for review of a final order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the immi-
gration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The
decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive “unless
manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We conclude that the record supports
the immigration judge’s decision that Gnizako failed to establish
her eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (2003).
The standard for gaining withholding of 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 demon-
strate a clear probability of persecution. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,
480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As Gnizako failed to establish she is
eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding.
Finally, we find Gnizako’s due process challenges to the
Board’s use of the streamlined review procedure set forth in 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) (2003) to be without merit. See Albathani v.
INS, 318 F.3d 365, 375-79 (1st Cir. 2003). We further find that
summary affirmance was appropriate in this case under the factors
set forth in § 1003.1(a)(7)(ii).
2
Accordingly, we deny Gnizako’s petition for review. We dis-
pense 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