Mohseni v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2098
HAMID REZA SHARIF MOHSENI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-415-633)
Submitted: July 7, 2004 Decided: August 12, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Richbourg, Memphis, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant
Director, Jamie M. Dowd, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Hamid Reza Sharif Mohseni, a native and citizen of Iran,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum and withholding
of removal.
In his petition for review, Mohseni challenges the
immigration judge’s determination that he was not eligible for
asylum because he was firmly resettled in Sweden. Our review of
the record reveals that substantial evidence supports this
determination, and we therefore uphold the immigration judge’s
denial of asylum relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15 (2004); Mussie v.
INS, 172 F.3d 329, 331-32 (4th Cir. 1999).
We also uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Mohseni’s request for withholding of removal. 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). Based on our review of the record, we find that
Mohseni has failed to meet this standard.
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
- 2 -