Case Name: Haddas FISSEHA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-23
Citations: 103 F. App'x 518
Docket Number: No. 03-2212
Parties: Haddas FISSEHA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
Haddas FISSEHA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-2212.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2004.
Decided: July 23, 2004.
Steven A. Moriey, Morley, Surin & Griffin, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Francesco Isgro, Senior Litigation Counsel, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Haddas Fisseha, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge's order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In her petition for review, Fisseha challenges the immigration judge's determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, 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 Fisseha fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks.
We deny the petition for review. We also deny Fisseha's motion for a stay of voluntary departure nunc pro tunc. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 193, 2004 WL 1277041, at *10 (4th Cir. June 10, 2004). 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