Case Name: Gunawan CHEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-17
Citations: 113 F. App'x 542
Docket Number: No. 04-1600
Parties: Gunawan CHEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 113
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
Gunawan CHEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-1600.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 27, 2004.
Decided Nov. 17, 2004.
Brian E. Mezger, Law Office of Brian E. Mezger, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, John S. Hogan, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:.
Gunawan Chen, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge's order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Chen challenges the immigration judge's determination that he failed to establish his 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 factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." INS v. Eli as-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. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge's denial of Chen's request for withholding of removal. "Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum—even though the facts that must be proved are the same—an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3)." Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). Because Chen fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
We also find that Chen fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We find that Chen fails to make the requisite showing.
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