
    Agere Abate FEKADU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-2409.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 7, 2004.
    Decided July 16, 2004.
    James A. Roberts, Law Offices of James A. Roberts, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, James A. Hunolt, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Agere Abate Fekadu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal.

On appeal, Fekadu raises challenges to the immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 488-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Fekadu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that Fekadu seeks.

Additionally, we conclude Fekadu’s claim that the Board’s use of the summary affirmance procedure under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e)(4) (2002) violated her rights under the Due Process Clause is foreclosed by our recent decision in Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir.2004). In Blanco de Belbruno, we held that “the BIA’s streamlining regulations do not violate an alien’s rights to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Id. at 282-83.

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  