Joni YULIANTO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent, 179 F. App'x 179

PER CURIAM: Joni Yulianto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for review. Yulianto challenges the Board’s denial of his request for relief for protection under the Convention Against Torture. As the Attorney General contends, Yulianto’s failure to raise this argument before the Board constitutes a waiver of the issue and precludes review by this court.

See Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 544 (4th Cir. 1999). We therefore do not review the Convention Against Torture claim. As for the denial of Yulianto’s request for asylum, we will reverse the Board only if the evidence “was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)). This court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara v.

Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). We have reviewed the record, the immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s order, and we conclude substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s credibility finding. Accordingly, Yulianto’s challenge to the denial of his application for asylum fails. The standards for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000) are higher than that for asylum. Therefore, “an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal.... ” Camara, 378 F.3d at 367.

Because substantial evidence supports the determination that Yulianto is ineligible for asylum, he also fails to qualify for withholding of removal. We therefore deny Yulianto’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.