Mukhtar v. Ashcroft , 102 F. App'x 288 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1981
RUGYA MOHAMED MUKHTAR,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-477-319)
Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 17, 2004
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Falls Church,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, Mary Jane Candaux,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rugya Mohamed Mukhtar, a native and citizen of Sudan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In her petition for review, Mukhtar raises challenges to
the immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish
her eligibility for asylum. Specifically, she challenges the
immigration judge’s finding that she lacked credibility. To obtain
reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an
alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Mukhtar fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she
seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Mukhtar’s request for withholding of removal. The standard for
withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting
asylum. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To
qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate
“a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
- 2 -
U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Mukhtar fails to show that she is
eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
Mukhtar also claims that the Board erred in affirming the
decision of the immigration judge without opinion, after review by
a single Board member, in accordance with the procedure set out in
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2003). To the extent that Mukhtar claims
that this procedure violated her rights under the Due Process
Clause, we find that this claim is squarely foreclosed by our
recent decision in Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272(4th Cir. 2004). We further find that summary affirmance was
appropriate in this case under the factors set forth in
§ 1003.1(e)(4).
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
- 3 -