Tizita Addis Mammo v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 1992 . We have reviewed the evidence of record

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2231
TIZITA ADDIS MAMMO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-469-266)
Submitted: March 10, 2004 Decided: March 29, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director,
John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Civil Division,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Tizita Addis Mammo, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of
her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. On appeal,
Mammo challenges the immigration judge’s ruling that Mammo failed
to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a
determination denying asylum, 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 (1992). We have reviewed the
evidence of record and conclude that Mammo’s evidence does not
compel a contrary result.
In addition, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Mammo’s application for withholding of removal. To qualify for
withholding, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of
persecution” on a protected ground. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987). Based on our review of the record, we
find that Mammo has failed to meet this standard.
Accordingly, we deny a 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

-- 2 of 2 --