Damte v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2508
TIGIST DAMTE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-466-434 )
Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 16, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tigist Damte, Petitioner Pro Se. Raymond Smith, IMMIGRATION &
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Arlington, Virginia; Gloria Minor, Daniel
Eric Goldman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tigist Damte, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) affirming and adopting the immigration judge’s order
denying Damte’s request for asylum, withholding from removal and
withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed
the administrative record and the immigration judge’s decision and
find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s
conclusion that Damte failed to establish the past persecution or
well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish
eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating
that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility
for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)
(same). We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so
compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84).
We find Damte failed to make a compelling case for asylum.
In addition, we find Damte failed to meet the higher
standards necessary to be granted either withholding from removal
or withholding under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2003); Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.
1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).
- 2 -
We deny Damte’s 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 -