Lolita PIERRE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 342 F. App'x 887

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lolita Pierre, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Pierre first challenges the determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum.

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Pierre fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. We therefore find that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Pierre’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 Pierre failed to show that she is eligible for asylum, she 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. Pierre fails to challenge the denial of her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. She has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004) (finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999) (same).