
    Abeba Isak WOLDEMICHAEL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-1315.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 9, 2004.
    Decided: Sept. 14, 2004.
    Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, 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    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Abeba Isak Woldemichael, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

On appeal, Woldemichael 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 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 Woldemichael fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Woldemichael’s request for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting asylum. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Because Woldemichael fails to show she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. We further find Woldemichael failed to show eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

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  