Case Name: Jemila Redi YESUF, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-29
Citations: 158 F. App'x 505
Docket Number: No. 05-1551
Parties: Jemila Redi YESUF, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 505–506

Head Matter:
Jemila Redi YESUF, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Respondent.
No. 05-1551.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2005.
Decided Dec. 29, 2005.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Richard W. Sponseller, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jemila Redi Yesuf, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's (IJ) 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 Yesuf fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Yesuf 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, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987).
We also uphold the IJ's finding Yesuf failed to establish eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). 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