corroborate her expulsion. Not even her mother’s letter mentions it, and she claims her mother heard about her expulsion. The problems with Trashehotk-ina’s explanations mean that the record does not compel us to hold that evidence corroborating the court summons or her expulsion was not reasonably obtainable. IV. Finding that key parts of Trashchotki-na’s testimony were implausible and that she failed to produce enough corroborating evidence to compensate for those implausibilities, the IJ and the BIA denied her asylum claim. Because the record does not compel us to conclude otherwise we must affirm that decision. Trashchotki-na’s ineligibility for asylum means that she is also ineligible for withholding of removal. See Rivera v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 815, 820-21 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Having no other challenges to the BIA’s
holding that the standard for withholding of removal is a showing that it is more likely than not that a petitioner will face persecution upon her return holding that the standard for withholding of removal is more demanding than the standard for asylum holding that an applicant who fails to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal holding that an alien who has failed the wellfounded fear test for asylum will necessarily fail the more stringent more likely than not test for withholding of removal holding that where a petitioner fails to establish a claim for asylum on the merits his claims for withholding of removal under the ina and cat also necessarily fail