
    Dieudonne Nganyang TCHABONG; Kellie Tchouya Leukeu; Mercure Nganyang Tchabong; Saturne Ngayang Tchabong; Nathalie Nganyang Tchabong, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-2002.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 30, 2007.
    Decided: May 17, 2007.
    Kim-Bun Thomas Li, Li, Latsey & Guiterman, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Dieudonne Nganyang Tchabong, a native and citizen of Cameroon, and dependent family members Nathalie Nganyang Tchabong, Kellie Tchouya Leukeu, Mercure Nganyang Tchabong, and Saturne Nganyang Tchabong, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of Tchabong’s applications for asylum, 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 regarding asylum and conclude that Tchabong fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15 (2006). In addition, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Tchabong failed to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); INS v. Cardozar-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we uphold the finding that Tchabong failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).

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.  