Ahmed v. Ashcroft , 111 F. App'x 160 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2361
ISLAM A. AHMED,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-600-949)
Submitted: September 29, 2004 Decided: October 14, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Margaret J. Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jacqueline
R. Dryden, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Islam A. Ahmed, a native and citizen of Sudan, seeks
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of
her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We first reject Ahmed’s claim that she established
eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal.* 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
Ahmed fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Ahmed thus cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of
removal. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).
Ahmed next claims that the Board’s summary affirmance of
her specific case violated her right to due process because the
IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal was in error and
because he failed to fully address her claims. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(a)(7) (2004). We have reviewed the administrative record
and the IJ’s decision and conclude that Ahmed’s claim is without
merit. See Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 281, 283
*
Ahmed does not dispute the denial of CAT relief.
- 2 -
(4th Cir. 2004); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324-25 (4th Cir. 2002);
8 C.F.R § 1003.1(a)(7)(ii) (2004).
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 -