UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1600
GUNAWAN CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-584-192)
Submitted: October 27, 2004 Decided: November 17, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian E. Mezger, LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN E. MEZGER, Bethesda, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, John S. Hogan,
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gunawan Chen, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order
denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Chen challenges the
immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his
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 (1992). We have
reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Chen fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Chen’s request for withholding of removal. “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). Because Chen fails to show that he
- 2 -
is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal.
We also find that Chen 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) (2004). We find
that Chen fails 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
- 3 -