Case Name: Seifu Araya ABRAHA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-08
Citations: 122 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 04-1780
Parties: Seifu Araya ABRAHA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 667–667

Head Matter:
Seifu Araya ABRAHA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-1780.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 16, 2005.
Decided: March 8, 2005.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kathleen M. Zapata, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Seifu Araya Abraha, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Abraha disputes the IJ's finding that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum by demonstrating persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. 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 Abraha fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Abraha 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