Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0367-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Parivash Zolfaghari ANARAKI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-2429.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 30, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 18, 2004.
    Andres Cayetano Benach, Maggio Kat-tar, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Cindy S. Ferrier, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Parivash Zolfaghari Anaraki petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming the immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture.

We have reviewed the administrative record, the Board’s order, and the immigration judge’s decision and find substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Anaraki failed to establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (same). We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “ ‘was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’ ” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812).

We do not find the record so compelling as to reverse the Board. Accordingly, we deny Anaraki’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