Dieynaba Seydou Thiam 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UNPUBLISHED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. 06-2153
DIEYNABA SEYDOU THIAM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-637-411)
Submitted: July 18, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW AND PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, OFFICE
OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Dieynaba Seydou Thiam, a native and citizen of Senegal,
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 (CAT). Thiam challenges the
Board’s finding that she failed to qualify for withholding of
removal and CAT relief.
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 Thiam fails to show that the evidence compels a
finding that she qualified 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). In addition, we uphold the finding that
Thiam failed to establish that it was more likely than not that she
would be tortured if removed to Senegal. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --