Lunardi v. Gonzales , 203 F. App'x 500 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1152
AGUS SETIADI LUNARDI; SELLY TANUWIHARDJA;
V.L.,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-279-362; A96-279-363; A96-279-364)
Submitted: September 25, 2006 Decided: October 16, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard T. Mei, LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD T. MEI, Bethesda, Maryland,
for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, Regina S. Moriarty, Tax Division,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Agus Setiadi Lunardi is the principal asylum applicant
for himself, Selly Tanuwihardja, his wife, and V.L., their minor
child, all natives and citizens of Indonesia. Lunardi petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.* Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined
process, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2006), the immigration
judge’s decision is the final agency determination. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004).
Lunardi challenges the immigration judge’s determination
that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of an adverse eligibility determination, an alien “must
show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Lunardi
fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief he seeks.
*
Lunardi does not challenge the Board’s denial of his
application for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Therefore, this claim is abandoned. See Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
Similarly, as Lunardi does not qualify for asylum, he is
also ineligible for withholding of removal. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). “Because the burden
of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even
though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who
is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Id.
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 -