Case Name: Bogalech Dressei YIFERU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-10
Citations: 223 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 06-1709
Parties: Bogalech Dressei YIFERU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
Bogalech Dressei YIFERU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-1709.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 10, 2007.
Bogalech Dressei Yiferu, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Daniel Eric Goldman, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bogalech Dressei Yiferu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of her 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 Yiferu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Yiferu 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 IJ's finding that Yiferu failed to establish that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Ethiopia. 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.