
    Xian Fei WANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-2400.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2005.
    Decided July 8, 2005.
    Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Chhetry & Associates, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Susan L. Siegal, Principal Deputy Director, William Henry Kenety V, Stephen Paskey, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Xian Fei Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “ ‘was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)). Credibility determinations of the immigration judge and Board are entitled to deference as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. See Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.1989). We have reviewed the evidence of record, the immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order, and we find substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Wang failed to establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812 (same).

Accordingly, we deny Wang’s 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  