Bart Emmanuel Lapian 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UNPUBLISHED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. 05-1441
BART EMMANUEL LAPIAN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-262-628)
Submitted: October 21, 2005 Decided: November 14, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bart Emmanuel Lapian, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bart Emmanuel Lapian, 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 denial
of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Lapian 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 Lapian fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Lapian’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 Lapian fails to show that

-- 2 of 3 --

*Lapian does not challenge the immigration judge’s denial of
his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture in
his petition for review.
- 3 -
he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal. *
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 of 3 --