Case Name: Xiao ZUO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-01
Citations: 204 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 06-1403
Parties: Xiao ZUO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 307–307

Head Matter:
Xiao ZUO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-1403.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 1, 2006.
Howard T. Mei, Law Offices of Howard T. Mei, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay L. Chichester, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and TRAXLER, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Xiao Zuo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order 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).
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 Zuo fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
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.
As Zuo fails in her opening brief to set forth any argument concerning the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief, we find that those claims have been abandoned on appeal. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).