
    Albert TAKOU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-2212.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 21, 2005.
    Decided April 7, 2005.
    Danielle Beach-Oswald, Noto & Oswald, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Albert Takou, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Takou challenges the immigration judge’s determination 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 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 Takou 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 Takou’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 Takou fails to show he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Because Takou did not specifically challenge on appeal to the Board the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, review of that claim is waived. Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 544 (4th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We grant the Government’s motion to strike pages 264-296 of Takou’s brief. 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  