Case ID: f-appx_91/html/0879-01.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

Tizita Addis MAMMO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-2231.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 10, 2004.
    Decided: March 29, 2004.
    Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, 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    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Tizita Addis Mammo, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. On appeal, Mammo challenges the immigration judge’s ruling that Mammo failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying asylum, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Mammo’s evidence does not compel a contrary result.

In addition, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Mammo’s application for withholding of removal. To qualify for withholding, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution” on a protected ground. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Based on our review of the record, we find that Mammo has faded to meet this standard.

Accordingly, we deny a 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