
    Marcelino Sulekopa PAPA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-1493.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.
    Decided: Dec. 13, 2010.
    William Payne, Lee & Associates, College Park, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Briena L. Strippoli, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marcelino Sulekopa Papa, a native and citizen of Equatorial Guineau, 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.

Papa 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 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Papa fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999) (citing INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-32, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987)). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Papa failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Equatorial Guineau. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010).

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.  