Case Name: Kuna NDIKUM, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-01
Citations: 148 F. App'x 180
Docket Number: No. 05-1371
Parties: Kuna NDIKUM, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 148
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
Kuna NDIKUM, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-1371.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 1, 2005.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Joel E. Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondent.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kuna Ndikum, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 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 Ndikum fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Ndikum 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