Drita Mema v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 1992 . We have reviewed the evidence of record

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1302
DRITA MEMA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-635-727)
Submitted: August 24, 2005 Decided: September 15, 2005
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Drita Mema, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Bryan Stuart
Beier, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Drita Mema, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming without opinion the immigration judge's order denying her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. In her petition for review,
Mema challenges the immigration judge's determination that she
failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal
of a determination denying eligibility for asylum, 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 Mema
fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief she seeks.
Nor can Mema show that she is 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).
Furthermore, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the immigration judge's determination that Mema did not

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
establish it was more likely than not that she would be tortured
“by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of
a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2004). Therefore, she has not
established her entitlement to relief under the CAT.
Finally, we find no error in the Board's decision to
affirm without opinion the immigration judge's oral decision. See
Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we deny Mema’s 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 of 3 --