Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Alibek V. Turkayev and Vera Belan (collectively, “Petitioners”) petition the Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board’s”) order dismissing their appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) order denying the application for asylum, withholding of removál, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) filed by Turkayev, a native and citizen of Kazakhstan. We have thoroughly examined the record and the contentions of the parties, and we deny the petition for review.

When assessing an alien’s petition for review, we must uphold the Board’s determination that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal unless the Board’s determination is “manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion.” Mirisawo v. Holder, 599 F.3d 391, 396 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). Legal questions determined by the Board are reviewed de novo, see Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008), while “ad *594 ministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006); Crespina-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124 (4th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the Board’s determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal will be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

The Petitioners’ claim before this court is very narrow: they simply contend that the Board improperly engaged in factfind-ing when it determined that they were not prejudiced by the conduct of the attorney who represented them before the I J, such that they did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s opinion, and we conclude that the Petitioners’ arguments are without merit.

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.