Case Name: WEN XING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-09
Citations: 225 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 06-2228
Parties: WEN XING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
WEN XING CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-2228.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2007.
Decided: May 9, 2007.
Wen Xing Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Tracey Wood, Kristin Kay Edison, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wen Xing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
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 Chen fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Chen 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). In addition, we uphold the finding that Chen failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).
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.