Mohamed v. Ashcroft ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1693
YASIR ELSIR TAHA MOHAMED,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-508-413)
Submitted: September 24, 2004 Decided: October 14, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yasir ElSir Taha Mohamed, Petitioner Pro Se. George William
Maugans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Baltimore, Maryland; Michele Yvette
Francis Sarko, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Gloria Minor, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yasir ElSir Taha Mohamed, a native and citizen of Sudan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial
of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have reviewed the administrative record, the Board’s
order, and the IJ’s decision and find substantial evidence supports
the conclusion that Mohamed 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) (2004)
(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).
Additionally, we uphold the Board's denial of Mohamed’s
application for withholding of removal. The standard for
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 demonstrate a clear probability of
persecution. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). As
- 2 -
Mohamed failed to establish refugee status, he cannot satisfy the
higher standard necessary for withholding.
Finally, we conclude substantial evidence supports the
IJ’s determination that Mohamed did not establish it was more
likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Sudan, see
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2004), and thus, that the IJ properly
denied Mohamed’s petition for protection under the CAT.
Accordingly, we deny Mohamed’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
- 3 -