Case Name: Xiandong XIE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-02
Citations: 132 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 04-2071
Parties: Xiandong XIE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
Xiandong XIE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2071.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2005.
Decided: June 2, 2005.
Jing Tan, Law Offices of Tan & Associates, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, David Lastra, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Xiandong Xie, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion 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 Xie fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Xie 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