
    Eti Zerihun YETIMGETA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-1560.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 19, 2006.
    Decided: June 8, 2006.
    Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Respondent.
    Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, 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    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Eti Zerihun Yetimgeta, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In her petition for review, Yetimgeta challenges the immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish her 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 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 Yetimgeta fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks.

Similarly, because Yetimgeta does not qualify for asylum, she is also ineligible for withholding of removal. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the finding that Yetimgeta fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Yetimgeta failed to make the requisite showing.

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.  