Case Name: Muti DENAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-21
Citations: 134 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 04-2435
Parties: Muti DENAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
Muti DENAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2435.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 25, 2005.
Decided: June 21, 2005.
Howard T. Mei, Law Offices of Howard T. Mei, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Shelley R. Goad, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Muti Denan and her husband Endranto, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming the immigration judge's order denying their 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 petitioners fail to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that they seek.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge's denial of petitioners' 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 petitioners fail to show that they are eligible for asylum, they cannot meet the higher standard for. withholding of removal.
We also find that petitioners fail to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We find that petitioners fail to make the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Denan is the lead petitioner in the instant case, as Endranto is basing his eligibility for relief on Denan's alleged persecution. Endranto is therefore a derivative beneficiary of Denan's asylum application. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21 (2004).