Case Name: Leslie Mofor ABANDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-27
Citations: 165 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 05-1709
Parties: Leslie Mofor ABANDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 165
Pages: 251–251

Head Matter:
Leslie Mofor ABANDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-1709.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 18, 2006.
Decided Jan. 27, 2006.
Carrie Crawford, Laurel, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Jennifer Aldrich, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Leslie Mofor Abanda, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his 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 Abanda fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Abanda 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). In addition, we uphold the IJ's finding that Abanda failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. 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