UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1764
DIANA SIAHAAN; DAULAT J.R. SIMANJANTAK; HEIDY
J.R. SIMANJANTAK,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-533-683; A95-533-684; A95-533-685)
Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 22, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linda Hanten, Cecil C. Harrigan, HARRIGAN & HANTEN, PC, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol A.
Bell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Diana Siahaan, her husband, Daulat J.R. Simanjantak, and
their daughter, Heidy J.R. Simanjantak (collectively
“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing
their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of their requests
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Siahaan is the primary applicant for
asylum; the claims of her husband and daughter are derivative of
her application. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(3) (West 1999 & Supp.
2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2004).
In their petition for review, the Petitioners challenge
the Board’s determination that they failed to establish their
eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination
denying eligibility for relief, 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 the Petitioners
fail to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that they seek.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of the Petitioners’
request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof
for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though
- 2 -
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).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because the Petitioners fail to
show that they are eligible for asylum, they cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal.*
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
*
The Petitioners do not challenge the denial of their request
for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
- 3 -