UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2117
LIONNI TJAKRA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-255-979)
Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: March 30, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Raymond Fasano, MADEO & FASANO, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle
Gorden, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C.;
Valerie K. Mann, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lionni Tjakra, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In her petition for review, Tjakra challenges the
immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish her
eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination
denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the
evidence she 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 Tjakra fails to
show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we
cannot grant the relief that she seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
Tjakra’s request for withholding of removal. “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).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Tjakra fails to show that
- 2 -
she is eligible for asylum, she 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
*
Tjakra also challenges the immigration judge’s denial of her
request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Because she failed to raise this claim before the Board, we find
that it is now waived. See Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th
Cir. 1990) (“[A]n alien who has failed to raise claims during an
appeal to the [Board] has waived his right to raise those claims
before a federal court on appeal of the [Board]’s decision.”).
- 3 -