
    Boniface O. ODOR; Jacinta I. Odor, Petitioners, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.
    No. 02-1858.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2003.
    Decided March 20, 2003.
    Rev. Uduak J. Ubom, Ubom, White & Roberts, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Virginia M. Lum, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Boniface O. Odor and Jacinta I. Odor, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Nigeria, seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the administrative record, the Board’s order and the IJ’s decision and find substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that the Odors failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution necessary to qualify for relief from deportation. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b) (2002). We have reviewed the IJ’s credibility determinations and conclude that they are supported by specific, cogent reasoning, and therefore are entitled to substantial deference. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.1989). We conclude that the record supports the Board’s conclusion that the Odors failed to establish their eligibility for asylum.

The standard for receiving withholding of deportation 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, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). As the Odors have failed to establish refugee status, they cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of deportation.

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.  