Rehearing granted, September 2, 2004

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2524

BETTY EBIAYA ENOW,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-280-895)

Submitted: September 24, 2004 Decided: October 14, 2004

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Betty Ebiaya Enow, Petitioner Pro Se. George William Maugans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). PER CURIAM:

Betty Ebiaya Enow, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)

summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of her

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under

the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture, and voluntary

departure. We deny the petition for review.

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for asylum 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,

(1992). See also Blanco de

Belbruno v. Ashcroft,

(4th Cir. 2004)

(immigration judge’s denial of asylum upheld “unless any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”).

Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary.

(b)(4)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the

evidence of record and Enow’s brief and conclude that she fails to

show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we

cannot grant the relief Enow seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of

Enow’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under

the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for withholding of

- 2 - removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of

persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,

(1987).

To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant

must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she

would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”

(c)(2) (2003). Based on our review of the

record, we find that Enow has failed to meet either one of these

standards.

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 -