Nwaka v. Ashcroft , 108 F. App'x 767 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2208
EGWU NWAKA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-374-959)
Submitted: July 23, 2004 Decided: August 23, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua A. Moses, JOSHUA MOSES & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Jason S. Patil,
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Egwu Nwaka, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition
for review.
Nwaka asserts that his testimony was credible and
corroborated and contends that he established his eligibility for
asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility
for asylum, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was
so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and
conclude that Nwaka fails to demonstrate that his evidence compels
a different result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
Nwaka seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Nwaka’s application for withholding of removal. The standard for
withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting
asylum. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To
qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate
“a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Nwaka fails to establish his
- 2 -
eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
Accordingly, we deny the 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 -