Kyi v. Ashcroft , 109 F. App'x 549 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2528
KHIN WIN KYI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-512-771)
Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy
Director, John Andre, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Khin Win Kyi, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for
review.
Kyi asserts that she established her eligibility for
asylum by showing past persecution and a well-founded fear of
future persecution. 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 Kyi fails to show that the
evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant
the relief that Kyi seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Kyi’s application
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 Kyi fails to show she is eligible for asylum, she cannot
- 2 -
meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Finally, we
uphold the denial of Kyi’s application for relief pursuant to the
Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 16(c) (2004).
We thus 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 -