Case Name: Hamid Reza Sharif MOHSENI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-12
Citations: 104 F. App'x 329
Docket Number: No. 03-2098
Parties: Hamid Reza Sharif MOHSENI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 329–329

Head Matter:
Hamid Reza Sharif MOHSENI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-2098.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 7, 2004.
Decided Aug. 12, 2004.
John S. Richbourg, Memphis, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jamie M. Dowd, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Hamid Reza Sharif Mohseni, a native and citizen of Iran, 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.
In his petition for review, Mohseni challenges the immigration judge's determination that he was not eligible for asylum because he was firmly resettled in Sweden. Our review of the record reveals that substantial evidence supports this determination, and we therefore uphold the immigration judge's denial of asylum relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15 (2004); Mussie v. INS, 172 F.3d 329, 331-32 (4th Cir.1999).
We also uphold the immigration judge's denial of Mohseni's request for withholding of removal. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate "a clear probability of persecution." INS v. Cardozar-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Based on our review of the record, we find that Mohseni has failed to meet this standard.
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