
    Sisay Awraris BELETE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-1313.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 18, 2011.
    Decided: Nov. 7, 2011.
    
      Alan M. Parra, Law Office of Alan M. Parra, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sisay Awraris Belete, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal.

Belete first challenges the determination that he failed to establish 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 fact-finder 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 88 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and Belete’s claims and conclude that Belete fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Belete cannot meet the more stringent standard 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). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Belete failed to qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2011).

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.  