Elsabagh v. INS

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ATEF SHAWKY ELSABAGH,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 97-2228
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A72-194-971)
Submitted: March 3, 1998
Decided: March 27, 1998
Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W.
Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Michael P.
Lindemann, Assistant Attorney General, Edward J. Duffy, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUS-
TICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Atef Shawky Elsabagh seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals' opinion and order dismissing his appeal and
affirming the immigration judge's decision denying his application
for asylum and withholding of deportation. We affirm.
Elsabagh, a citizen of Egypt, contends that the Board erred by
holding that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution
if he returns to Egypt. He maintains that radical Islamic groups have
become increasingly aggressive in the last twenty years, targeting
government officials, Coptic Christians, professionals, and those with
pro-Western attitudes.
We must uphold the Board's determination that Elsabagh is not eli-
gible for asylum if the determination is supported by substantial evi-
dence on the record considered as a whole. See Huaman-Cornelio v.
Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992)
(holding that petitioner must show concrete facts that would lead a
reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution); Figeroa
v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that petitioner must
show a genuine fear of persecution). Our review of the record dis-
closes that the Board's decision is based on substantial evidence and
is without reversible error.
The standard for withholding of deportation is more stringent than
that for granting asylum. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430-32, 443-48 (1987). To qualify for withholding of deportation, an
applicant must demonstrate a "clear probability of persecution." Id. at
430. As Elsabagh has not established entitlement to asylum, he cannot
meet the higher standard for withholding of deportation.
Accordingly, we affirm the Board's order. See Elsabagh v. INS,
No. A72-194-971 (B.I.A. Aug. 12, 1997). We dispense with oral
2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3