
    Deicy Diana PONGILATAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 05-1676.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 29, 2006.
    Decided April 11, 2006.
    Diane McHugh-Martinez Law Office of McHugh-Martinez, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robert E. Connolly, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, 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    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Deicy Diana Pongilatan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s order denying her requests for asylum and 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 Pongilatan fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we uphold the denial of her requests for asylum and withholding of removal.

Additionally, Pongilatan challenges the immigration judge’s denial of her request for relief under the Convention Against Torture, challenging the standards applied below to this determination. Because she failed to raise this claim before the Board, however, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Asika v. Ashcroft, 862 F.3d 264, 267 n. 3 (4th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1049, 125 S.Ct. 861, 160 L.Ed.2d 769 (2005).

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  