No. 09-1472.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: November 18, 2009.
Decided: December 18, 2009.
Page 559
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Peter Nyoh, Peter Nyoh Associates, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, Channah M. Farber, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rolindis Ngwemenchu Atanga, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Atanga first challenges the 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Atanga fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. We therefore find that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Atanga’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for with-holding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ash-croft, 378 F.3d 361, 367
(4th Cir. 2004). Because Atanga failed to show that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
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
Page 560
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.