Court Opinion

ID: 993758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:12:32.961071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:20.320049
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BISCUT HABTE,
Petitioner,

v.
                                                                      No. 97-1918
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A73-704-648)

Submitted: November 25, 1997

Decided: December 19, 1997

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William H. Rhodes, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank W.
Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Joan E. Smiley, Senior Litiga-
tion Counsel, Tina Potuto, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Biscut Habte petitions for review of a final order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her application for asylum and
withholding of deportation. Because substantial evidence supports the
Board's decision, we affirm.

Habte, who entered the United States in May 1993 as a student,
contends that the Board erred by holding that she failed to establish
a well-founded fear of persecution for her political beliefs if she
returns to Ethiopia. She maintains that while the political climate has
changed in Ethiopia, there is still a pattern of persecution of people
who oppose the Ethiopian government.

We must uphold the Board's determination that Habte is not eligi-
ble for asylum if the determination is "supported by reasonable, sub-
stantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole."
8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994). See also Huaman-Cornelio v. Board
of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding
that petitioner must show concrete facts that would lead a reasonable
person in like circumstances to fear persecution); Figeroa v. INS, 886
F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that petitioner must show a genu-
ine fear of persecution). Upon thorough review of the record, we con-
clude that the Board applied the proper standard in evaluating Habte's
claim and that substantial evidence supports its decision to deny
relief.

Although Habte presented enough evidence to establish that she
had been subject to persecution in the past, a preponderance of the
evidence establishes that since 1993 conditions have changed in Ethi-
opia. The State Department reports that the Ethiopian government has
taken steps to improve its human rights practices and that as of 1994,
full political rights were restored to those who were allegedly perse-

                    2
cuted because of their political beliefs. Habte relies upon an Ethiopian
Human Rights Council report to support her claims. The State Depart-
ment warns that publications from that organization may lack credi-
bility. Consequently, Habte no longer has a well-founded fear of
being persecuted based on her alleged political membership. See
Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir. 1992)
(regarding "well-founded fear of persecution").

The standard for withholding of deportation is more stringent than
that for granting asylum. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430-32 (1987). To qualify for withholding of deportation, an appli-
cant must demonstrate a "clear probability of persecution." Id. at 430.
As Habte has not established entitlement to asylum, she cannot meet
the higher standard of withholding of deportation.

We accordingly affirm the Board's order. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3