                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No.  04-1898



ALAIN TSOBGNY,

                                                         Petitioner,

          versus


ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

                                                         Respondent. 



On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. ( A95-545-788)


Submitted:   March 18, 2005                 Decided:   April 4, 2005


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 


Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 


Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.  Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
Director, Joshua E. Braunstein, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
See Local Rule 36(c). 
PER CURIAM:

           Alain   Tsobgny,    a   native   and   citizen    of   Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

           To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence 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 Tsobgny fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result.      Having failed to qualify for asylum, Tsobgny

cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of

removal.    Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.  1999); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).         Finally, we uphold the

IJ’s finding that Tsobgny failed to establish that it was more

likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). 

           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
