
    PENG LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-1881.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 10, 2010.
    Decided: May 28, 2010.
    Allen Gardner, Benjamin Vinocour, La-tham & Watkins, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Theo Nickerson, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Peng Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal.

Liu 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 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 Liu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Having failed to qualify for asylum, Liu 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). Next, we uphold the finding below that Liu failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Finally, we have considered Liu’s claim that he was denied due process due to problems with translation during the hearing and conclude that such claim lacks merit. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir.2008).

Accordingly, we deny the petition fox-review. We dispense with oral ai’gument because the facts and legal contentions ax-e adequately presented in the materials before the court and ai’gument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.  