In these consolidated appeals, Sumarni Fauzi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, challenges two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). In No. 06-1153, Fauzi seeks review of an order of the Board affirming the immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. * In No. 06-1641, Fauzi petitions for review of a Board order denying her motion to reopen the removal proceedings.

Fauzi challenges the Board’s denial of withholding of removal. “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n. 13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s holding that Fauzi failed to meet this standard.

Fauzi also alleges that the Board erred in denying her protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for this protection, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006). Fauzi failed to make such a showing.

Finally, in No. 06-1641, Fauzi challenges the Board’s denial of her motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 *270 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, — U.S.L.W. - (U.S. Sept. 18, 2006) (No. 06-6650). Denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor such motions. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). This court reverses the Board’s denial of such a motion only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry, 445 F.3d at 745. We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.

Accordingly, we deny Fauzi’s petitions 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.

PETITIONS DENIED.