UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CABDI ADAN, 

Petitioner,

v.  No. 02-2358

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney

General,

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A77-008-704)

Submitted: July 31, 2003

Decided: September 10, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Falls

Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant

Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Efthimia S.

Pilitsis, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Cabdi Adan, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for review

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming

without opinion the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review. 

Adan first claims that the Board erred in affirming the decision of

the immigration judge without opinion, after review by a single Board

member, in accordance with the procedure set out in 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(a)(7) (2003). We have reviewed Adan’s challenges to the

Board’s use of this streamlined procedure and find them to be without

merit. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, ___ F.3d ___, 2003 WL

21639040, *1 (9th Cir. July 14, 2003); Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d

962, 967 (7th Cir. 2003); Mendoza v. United States Attorney Gen.,

327 F.3d 1283, 1288-89 (11th Cir. 2003); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324

F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003); Gonzalez-Oropeza v. United States

Attorney Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2003); Albathani

v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 375-79 (1st Cir. 2003); see also Khattak v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2003) (rejecting a challenge to the

Board’s summary affirmance procedure on retroactivity grounds and

concluding that "allowing summary opinions in clear cases is nothing

more than a procedural change that does not affect substantive

rights"). We further find that summary affirmance was appropriate in

this case under the factors set forth in § 1003.1(a)(7)(ii). 

Next, Adan challenges the immigration judge’s finding that he

failed to demonstrate that he suffered past persecution or that he possesses a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. 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

2 ADAN v. ASHCROFT
record supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Adan failed

to establish his eligibility for asylum on a protected ground. See 8

C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating that the burden of proof is on the

alien to establish his eligibility for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (holding that the alien must show "that the

record compels the conclusion that he has a ‘well-founded fear’ that

the guerrillas will persecute him because of [his] political opinion [or

membership in a social group], rather than because of his refusal to

fight with them") (emphasis in original). As the decision in this case

is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot grant the relief that Adan

seeks. 

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Adan’s

application for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding

of removal is more stringent than that for granting asylum. Chen v.

INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To qualify for withholding

of removal, an applicant must demonstrate "a clear probability of persecution." INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).

Because Adan fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot

meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. 

Accordingly, we deny the 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

ADAN v. ASHCROFT 3