Asfaw v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2459
ALEMAYEHU BACHORE ASFAW,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-363-148)
Submitted: June 30, 2003 Decided: July 25, 2003
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry L. Lewis, LAW OFFICE OF J.W. NESARI, L.L.C., Herndon,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Margaret Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, Audrey
B. Hemesath, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alemayehu B. Asfaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have reviewed the record provided by the parties and
the decision of the Board.
Asfaw challenges the negative credibility findings made by the
immigration judge and affirmed by the Board. We have reviewed the
immigration judge’s credibility determination and find it to be
supported by specific, cogent reasoning and therefore entitled to
substantial deference. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.
1989). We hold that the Board’s conclusion that Asfaw failed to
establish eligibility for asylum is not manifestly contrary to the
law or an abuse of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1254(b)(4)(D) (2000).
The standard for receiving 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 Asfaw failed to establish
entitlement to asylum, he cannot satisfy the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3