Case Name: Fnu AMELIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-29
Citations: 186 F. App'x 374
Docket Number: No. 05-2268
Parties: Fnu AMELIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 374–374

Head Matter:
Fnu AMELIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 05-2268.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 12, 2006.
Decided: June 29, 2006.
Steven A. Morley, Morley, Surin & Griffin, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, John E. Cunningham III, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fnu Amelia, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's denial of her 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Amelia fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Amelia cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); INS v. Cardozcir-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987).
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.
Amelia does not challenge the finding that she failed to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture.