Case Name: Kassahun Wagaw WORKNEH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General; U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-19
Citations: 63 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 02-1804
Parties: Kassahun Wagaw WORKNEH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General; U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Respondents.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
Kassahun Wagaw WORKNEH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General; U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Respondents.
No. 02-1804.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2003.
Decided May 19, 2003.
Mikre Michael Ayele, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation, Nelda C. Reyna, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM.
Kassahun Wagaw Workneh, native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying Work-neh's application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have reviewed the administrative record and the IJ's decision. We find that the IJ's ruling that Workneh failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, as necessary to qualify for asylum relief, is not manifestly contrary to the law or an abuse of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D); see 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (2003) (eligibility for asylum).
The standard for receiving withholding of removal is "more stringent than that for asylum eligibility." Chen v. INS, 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, 430-31, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). As Workneh has failed to establish his eligibility for 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.