¶1 Muhammad Doza, 1 a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of an *916 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Doza disputes the IJ’s negative credibility finding and asserts that he established his eligibility for asylum.
¶2 Upon our review of the administrative record, we find that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Doza failed to establish eligibility for the relief sought. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1994); 2 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (2003); Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.1989). Doza thus cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of deportation. See INS v. Cardozcir-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987).
¶3 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.
¶4 PETITION DENIED
¶5 . Also listed as Petitioners dependent on Doza’s application for relief are Doza's wife, Rokeya Khanam, and four sons, Mohammed Shamsuddoha, Mohammed Sadrulula, Mosammat Jabunnesa, and Mohammed Mohiuddin.
¶6 . We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) effective April 1, 1997. Because this case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable under the terms of the transitional rules contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA.