Naser v. Gonzales ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2536
NEJAT NASER,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-886-257)
Submitted: May 23, 2005 Decided: June 15, 2005
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty,
United States Attorney, R. Joseph Sher, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nejat Naser, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s
decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding from
removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture.*
A determination of noneligibility for withholding must be
upheld if supported by substantial evidence on the record
considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992). We will only reverse “if ‘the evidence presented was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of
Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal
quotation marks omitted)). To qualify for withholding of removal,
Naser must show a clear probability of persecution because of her
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion. Rusu, 296 F.3d at 324 n.13 (citing
INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). We find substantial
evidence supports the Board’s decision.
Protection under the CAT is generally granted in the form
of withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2004). An
*
Naser does not challenge the finding that she was not
eligible for asylum because the application was not timely.
- 2 -
applicant must establish it is more likely than not that she would
be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Again, we find the Board’s finding is
supported by substantial evidence.
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 -