
    Botendele Daniel SAMI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 05-1535.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 5, 2005.
    Decided: Dec. 16, 2005.
    Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
    Before LUTTIG, KING, 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    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Botendele Daniel Sami, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Sami challenges the immigration judge’s determination that 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 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 Sami fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks.

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 
      
       Sami did not challenge the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture before the Board. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider these arguments on appeal. See Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n. 3 (4th Cir.2004), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 861, 160 L.Ed.2d 769 (2005).
     