
    Florence Awino OJOWA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-60514
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 7, 2011.
    Alexandre I. Afanassiev, Esq., Foster Quan, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Christina Bechak Parascandola, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Tangerlia Cox, Don George Scroggin, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Florence Awino Ojowa, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions this court for review of an order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and ordering her removed to Kenya. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal of the denial of relief by the Immigration Judge (U).

This court will uphold the BIA’s factual findings if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Silwany-Rodriguez v. INS, 975 F.2d 1157, 1160 (5th Cir.1992). The determinations that an alien is not eligible for asylum, for withholding of removal, or for protection under the CAT are factual findings reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.2006).

Ojowa argues that the BIA and IJ erred by determining that she failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution or substantial grounds for believing that she would be in danger of being tortured if deported to Kenya. The evidence in this case is not so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the petitioner statutorily eligible for relief. The determinations that Ojowa was not eligible for asylum, for withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT will not be disturbed. See Chen, 470 F.3d at 1134.

Ojowa’s petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     