Workneh v. Ashcroft , 63 F. App'x 142 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1804
KASSAHUN WAGAW WORKNEH,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General; U.S.
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-252-385)
Submitted: May 9, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mikre Michael Ayele, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D.
McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Nelda C. Reyna, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kassahun Wagaw Workneh, native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming
without opinion the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying
Workneh’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. We
have reviewed the administrative record and the IJ’s decision. We
find that the IJ’s ruling that Workneh failed to establish past
persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, as
necessary to qualify for asylum relief, is not manifestly contrary
to the law or an abuse of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D);
see 8 C.F.R. 208.13(b) (2003) (eligibility for asylum).
The standard for receiving withholding of removal is “more
stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d
198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). An applicant for withholding must
demonstrate a clear probability of persecution. INS v. Cardoza-
Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987). As Workneh has failed to
establish his eligibility for asylum, he cannot satisfy the higher
standard for withholding of removal.
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2