Case ID: f-appx_80/html/0892-01.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

Yao Richard SOSSOU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-1241.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
    Decided Nov. 19, 2003.
    Edwin K Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. McConnell, Deputy Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Yao Richard Sossou, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We have reviewed the record provided by the parties and the decision of the Board.

Sossou challenges the negative credibility findings made by the immigration judge and affirmed by the Board. We have reviewed the immigration judge’s credibility determination and find it to be supported by specific, cogent reasoning and therefore entitled to substantial deference. Figeroa v. U.S. I.N.S., 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.1989). We hold that the Board’s conclusion that Sossou failed to establish eligibility for asylum is not manifestly contrary to the law or an abuse of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1254(b)(4)(D) (2000).

The standard for receiving withholding of removal is “more stringent than that for asylum eligibility.” Chen v. U.S. I.N.S., 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 Sossou failed to establish entitlement to 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.