Case Name: Meijuan ZHENG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-15
Citations: 113 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 04-1704
Parties: Meijuan ZHENG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 113
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
Meijuan ZHENG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-1704.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 27, 2004.
Decided Nov. 15, 2004.
Meijuan Zheng, Petitioner pro se.
M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Meijuan Zheng, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Zheng claims she established eligibility 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 Zheng fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Zheng thus cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. See 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
Zheng does not dispute the denial of CAT relief.