
    Zheng Fang WENG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-2451.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 16, 2005.
    Decided: March 25, 2005.
    Zheng Fang Weng, Petitioner pro se.
    James Arthur Hunolt, Song E. Park, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, 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    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Zheng Fang Weng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

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 Weng fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Weng 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).

We also uphold the IJ’s finding that Weng failed to establish eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). Finally, we reject Weng’s claim that he was not accorded due process in that he was not provided sufficient opportunity to explain his inconsistent asylum applications, as this claim is belied by the record.

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  