
    Antonius Michael RUSLI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-1094.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
    Decided: Nov. 27, 2006.
    Matthew W. Rau, Law Office of Matthew W. Rau, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Antonius Michael Rusli, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Rusli challenges the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of an adverse eligibility determination, 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 it does not compel a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief Rusli seeks.

Similarly, as Rusli does not qualify for asylum, he is ineligible for withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). “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).” Id.

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. 
      
       Rusli does not challenge the Board's denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, Rusli has waived appellate review of this claim. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).
     