Mohammed v. Ashcroft , 117 F. App'x 856 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2327
AMIRA MOHAMMED,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-612-318)
Submitted: September 15, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael M. Hadeed, Jr., BECKER, HADEED, KELLOGG & BERRY, P.C.,
Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Thomas H. Tousley, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Amira Mohammed, a native and citizen of Ethiopia of
Eritrean ethnicity, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum and
withholding of removal.
On appeal, Mohammed raises challenges to the IJ’s
determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for
asylum. 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 Mohammed fails to show that the evidence compels
a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
Mohammed seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Mohammed’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 U.S. 421,
430 (1987). Because Mohammed fails to show that she is eligible
- 2 -
for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of
removal.
Finally, we conclude Mohammed has waived her argument
that the IJ erred when she issued an alternative order of removal
because Mohammed did not raise this issue before the Board. See
Selgeka v. Carroll, 184 F.3d 337, 345 (4th Cir. 1999); Farrokhi v.
INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir. 1990).
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 -