Case Name: Lia MAYNILDA; Herry Jaya Lienardy Lie, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-07
Citations: 125 F. App'x 509
Docket Number: No. 04-2409
Parties: Lia MAYNILDA; Herry Jaya Lienardy Lie, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 509–509

Head Matter:
Lia MAYNILDA; Herry Jaya Lienardy Lie, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2409.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 2005.
Decided April 7, 2005.
Lia Maynilda, Herry Jaya Lienardy Lie, Petitioners pro se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Song E. Park, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lia Maynilda and Herry Jaya Lienardy Lie, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of two separate orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge's denial of their requests for asylum and withholding of removal. 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 fact-finder 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 the Petitioners fail to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, the Petitioners cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004).
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