Lielt Worku 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UNPUBLISHED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. 03-2474
LIELT WORKU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-615-959)
Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alison J. Brown, MAGGIO & KATTAR, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey
J. Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, William K. Olivier, OFFICE
OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lielt Worku, 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, Worku 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 (1992). We have
reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Worku fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that she seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Worku’s request for withholding of removal. The standard for
withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting
asylum. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To
qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate
“a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Worku fails to show that she is

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
Finally, to the extent that Worku claims that the Board’s
use of the summary affirmance procedure as set forth in 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(e)(4) (2004) violated her rights under the Due Process
Clause, we find that this claim is squarely foreclosed by our
recent decision in Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272
(4th Cir. 2004). We further find that summary affirmance was
appropriate in this case under the factors set forth in
§ 1003.1(e)(4).
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

-- 3 of 3 --