Liana v. Holder , 419 F. App'x 319 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1764
ANA LIANA; ANDY MANTJOENG; YANI MANTJOENG; SICILIA
MANTJOENG; HANJOKO SETIAWAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 10, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia,
for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Paul
Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Judith R. O’Sullivan, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ana Liana, her husband, Andy Mantjoeng, their married
daughter, Sicilia Mantjoeng, their unmarried daughter, Yani
Mantjoeng, and Sicilia’s husband, Hanjoko Setiawan (collectively
“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of
their requests for asylum and withholding of removal.
Before this court, the Petitioners challenge the
determination that they failed to establish their eligibility
for relief. They contend that the credibility determination was
not supported by specific and cogent reasoning and that the
Board and the immigration judge erred in concluding that they
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution in Indonesia on account of their Chinese
ethnicity and Christian religion.
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of
fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the
2
[Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality
Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey,
517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This Court will reverse
the Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at
483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an alien is not
eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless manifestly contrary to
the law and an abuse of discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592
F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)
(2006)).
We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude
that substantial evidence supports both the agency’s adverse
credibility determination and the finding that the Petitioners
failed to demonstrate either past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution in Indonesia. We therefore uphold
the denial of their requests for asylum and 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).”).
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.
PETITION DENIED
4