
    Anis SOENARYO; Asnil Amirudin Gadang; Akhdan Gadang; Akmal Gadang, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. Anis Soenaryo; Asnil Amirudin Gadang; Akhdan Gadang; Akmal Gadang, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 06-1256, 06-1763.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 28, 2007.
    Decided: April 19, 2007.
    Haitham Edward Bailout, Law Offices of Haitham Edward Bailout, Burlingame, California, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Barbara C. Biddle, Sushma Soni, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petitions denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Anis Soenaryo, and dependent petitioners Asnil Amirudin Gadang, Akhdan Ga-dang, and Akmal Gadang, all natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of (1) an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of Soenaryo’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and (2) the Board’s order denying her subsequent motion to reopen.

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 Soenaryo fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Soenaryo 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). Further, she failed to demonstrate eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).

In addition, our review discloses no abuse of discretion in the Board’s denial of Soenaryo’s motion to reopen. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Edüd 823 (1992); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 (4th Cir.2002); Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 640 (B.I.A. 1988). We grant the Attorney General’s motion to strike the unexhausted arguments and exhibits one through ten of Soenaryo’s supplemental brief. We deny the petitions for review and 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.

PETITIONS DENIED.  