Case Name: Linda ORLIANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-10
Citations: 164 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 05-1672
Parties: Linda ORLIANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
Linda ORLIANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-1672.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 18, 2006.
Decided Feb. 10, 2006.
Howard T. Mei, Law Offices of Howard T. Mei, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Linda Orliana, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Orliana contends that she established eligibility for asylum. As the Board concluded that the asylum application was untimely, we find that consideration of Orliana's asylum claim is barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000).
Orliana also challenges the finding that she failed to qualify for withholding of removal. See Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Orliana fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
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