Case ID: f-appx_74/html/0292-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Millissa Mandani BASSANT, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-1105.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 31, 2003.
    Decided Sept. 12, 2003.
    Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Robert D. MeCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Senior Litigation, Nelda C. Reyna, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Millissa Nandani Bassant, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions this court for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive “unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We conclude that the record supports the immigration judge’s decision that Bassant failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (2003); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir.1999). As the decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot grant the relief Bassant seeks.

The standard for gaming 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, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). As Bassant failed to establish she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding.

Accordingly, we deny Bassant’s 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.