UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1452
KULWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-001-872)
Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 14, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, Virginia; James T. Reynolds, PAUL
SHEARMAN ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C.; Steffanie Jones
Lewis, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Jeffrey L. Oldham, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C.; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kulwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture.
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 Singh fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Singh cannot
meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal.
Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987).
We also uphold the IJ’s finding Singh failed to establish
eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). 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
- 2 -