Katung Tan v. William P. Barr ( 2020 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 11-2918
___________________________
Katung Petrus Tan; Lili Esther Tan; Daniel Pieter Tan; Sarah Tan
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners
v.
William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
___________________________
No. 12-1742
___________________________
Katung Petrus Tan; Lili Esther Tan; Daniel Pieter Tan; Sarah Tan
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners
v.
William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: April 2, 2020
Filed: April 3, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated matters, Indonesian citizens Katung, Lili, Daniel and
Sarah Tan (collectively, the Tans) petition for review of (1) an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the decision of an
immigration judge (IJ), which denied Katung withholding-of-removal relief; and (2)
an order of the BIA denying their motion to reopen proceedings.1
Upon careful review, we conclude substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Katung was not entitled to withholding of removal. See
Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review);
Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405, 411-12 (8th Cir. 2007) (withholding-of-removal
requirements); see also Gumaneh v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 785, 789-90 & n.2 (8th Cir.
2008) (recognizing limited derivative claims provided for in asylum statute are not
available to withholding-of-removal applicants). We find no abuse of discretion in
the BIA’s denial of the Tans’s motion to reopen. See Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387,
391 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d
1
The Tans do not challenge the denial of asylum and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th
Cir. 2004) (noting a claim not raised in an opening brief is waived).
-2-
481, 484-85 (8th Cir. 2011) (requirements for motion to reopen based on ineffective
assistance of counsel).
The petitions for review are denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-