
    Catherine Flore TCHENTCHEU, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-1632.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 9, 2008.
    Decided: June 20, 2008.
    Ronald D. Richey, Law Office of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Shahrzad Baghai, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Catherine Flore Tchentcheu, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks to petition for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). The INA defines a refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to her native country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000). An applicant can establish refugee status based on past persecution in her native country on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) (2006). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.2004).

An applicant has the burden of demonstrating her eligibility for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2006); Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2006). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). This court will reverse the Board “only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s adverse credibility finding and the record does not compel a different result. Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board’s denial of Tchentcheu’s applications for asylum and withholding from removal.

We also find because Tchentcheu did not establish her identity or her opposition party membership, substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of her application for relief under the CAT.

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.  