
    Mahmud Gaid AHMED, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-2254.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 21, 2003.
    
      James A. Roberts, Law Offices of James A. Roberts, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation, Marshall Tamor Golding, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Mahmud Gaid Ahmed, a native and citizen of Somalia, 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.

Ahmed challenges the negative credibility findings made by the immigration judge and affirmed by the Board. We have reviewed the immigration judge’s credibility determination and find it to be supported by specific, cogent reasoning and therefore entitled to substantial deference. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.1989). We hold that the Board properly reviewed Ahmed’s appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) (2003). Accordingly, we find Ahmed’s failure to establish eligibility for asylum is not manifestly contrary to the law or an abuse of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1254(b)(4)(D) (2000).

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. Cardozar-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). As Ahmed failed to establish entitlement to asylum, he 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.  