
    Maurine E. AKWI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-1876.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 25, 2011.
    Decided: May 12, 2011.
    Irena I. Karpinski, Law Offices of Irena I. Karpinski, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Susan Bennett Green, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maurine E. Akwi, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for relief from removal.

Akwi first challenges the determination that she 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 fact-finder 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 Akwi fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006).

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Akwi cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); INS v. Cardozar-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Akwi failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010).

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.  