
    Helena Garmai GANT, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-1464.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 20, 2004.
    Decided Oct. 29, 2004.
    
      David Goren, Law Office of David Goren, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Isaac R. Campbell, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, 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    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

Helena Garmai Gant, a native and citizen of Liberia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board affirmed the ruling of the immigration judge that Gant was not a credible witness. Gant contends that her testimony was credible and corroborated and was therefore sufficient to establish eligibility. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Gant fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Nor can Gant show that she was entitled to withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000). “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004).

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  