Antonia Ibarra v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 4th Cir. 2002 quoting Huaman- Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1268
ANTONIA IBARRA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A71-798-936)
Submitted: September 16, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003
Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald L. Schlemmer, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Loeb, Alisa B.
Klein, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Antonia Ibarra, a native and citizen of Bolivia, petitions for
review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We have
reviewed the record provided by the parties and the decision of the
Board.
Ibarra claims the Board abused its discretion by not finding
she had established a well-founded fear of persecution. She
further claims the Board erred by finding she had not met her
burden of proof. A determination that an alien is not eligible for
asylum must be upheld unless that determination is “manifestly
contrary to law and an abuse of discretion.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). This Court will reverse the Board “only if
‘the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact
finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu
v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Huaman-
Cornelio, 979 F.2d at 999 (internal quotation marks omitted)). We
find the evidence does not compel a contrary finding. Accordingly,
we find Ibarra failure to establish 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 (1987). As Ibarra failed to establish

-- 2 of 3 --

3
entitlement to asylum, she 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

-- 3 of 3 --