No. 09-2066.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: June 28, 2010.
Decided: July 8, 2010.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
James A. Roberts, Law Office of James A. Roberts, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Rana Khalifa Elsayed Abbas, a native and citizen of Sudan, 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.
Abbas 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 Abbas 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 Abbas’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding 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. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367
(4th Cir. 2004). Because Abbas 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.