Hassen v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1468
SAEED Y. HASSEN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (A78-347-031)
Submitted: January 23, 2004 Decided: March 9, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Garfield, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID GARFIELD, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda
S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, Janice K. Redfern, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Saeed Y. Hassen, a native and citizen of Eritrea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
On appeal, Hassen raises challenges to the immigration
judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility
for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying
eligibility for relief, 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 Hassen fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result.
We have also reviewed Hassen’s claim that he was entitled
to a grant of asylum on humanitarian grounds and find that his is
simply not “‘the rare case where past persecution is so severe that
it would be inhumane to return the alien even in the absence of any
risk of future persecution.’” Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 544
(4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Vaduva v. INS, 131 F.3d 689, 690 (7th Cir.
1997)). Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that Hassen seeks.
We therefore deny the petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -