Case Name: Jean Colbert Djindjeu NKWENDJA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-15
Citations: 284 F. App'x 96
Docket Number: No. 07-1862
Parties: Jean Colbert Djindjeu NKWENDJA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
Jean Colbert Djindjeu NKWENDJA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-1862.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 20, 2008.
Decided: July 15, 2008.
Peter Nyoh, Peter Nyoh and Associates, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, W. Manning Evans, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jean Colbert Djindjeu Nkwendja, 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 relief from removal.
Nkwendja first challenges the determination that he 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 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 Nkwendja fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Nkwendja 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).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.