Case ID: f-appx_95/html/0522-01.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

Ibrahim Said OMAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-2301.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 9, 2004.
    Decided April 29, 2004.
    
      ■Jeffrey B. Elikan, Mark D. Maneche, Venable, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Jay Singer, Matthew M. Collette, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Ibrahim Said Omar, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum. We have reviewed the administrative record and the immigration judge’s decision, designated by the Board as the final agency determination, and find that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Omar 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 “ Vas 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 find no such compelling evidence.

We deny Omar’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