Case Name: Gulam Samad NOORY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-27
Citations: 159 F. App'x 521
Docket Number: No. 05-1252
Parties: Gulam Samad NOORY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 159
Pages: 521–521

Head Matter:
Gulam Samad NOORY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-1252.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 17, 2005.
Decided Dec. 27, 2005.
Michael E. Hadeed, Miguel Rodriquez Rivera, Becker, Hadeed, Kellogg & Berry, P.C., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Anita C. Snyder, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gulam Samad Noory, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications 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 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 Noory fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Noory 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).
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