Case Name: Prince NAPHAZI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-14
Citations: 434 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 10-2141
Parties: Prince NAPHAZI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 434
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
Prince NAPHAZI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-2141.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2011.
Decided: June 14, 2011.
Alexander M. Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffery R. Leist, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Prince Naphazi, a native and citizen of Zimbabwe, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for relief from removal.
Naphazi first challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. 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 Naphazi fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Naphazi cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 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).
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.