Case Name: AYE AYE PHYU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-15
Citations: 397 F. App'x 933
Docket Number: No. 10-1346
Parties: AYE AYE PHYU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 933–933

Head Matter:
AYE AYE PHYU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-1346.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 15, 2010.
Aye Aye Phyu, Petitioner Pro Se. Melody A. Brukiewa, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Baltimore, Maryland; Kiley L. Kane, Tyrone Sojourner, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aye Aye Phyu, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of her applications for relief from removal.
Phyu first challenges the determination that she failed to establish eligibility for asylum. 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 Phyu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Having failed to qualify for asylum, Phyu cannot meet the more stringent standard 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). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Phyu failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Burma. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010).
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.