UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2435
MUTI DENAN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-552-333)
Submitted: May 25, 2005 Decided: June 21, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard T. Mei, LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD T. MEI, Bethesda, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Shelley R. Goad, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Muti Denan and her husband Endranto, natives and citizens
of Indonesia, petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s
order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.*
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 petitioners fail to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that they
seek.
Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of
petitioners’ 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
*
Denan is the lead petitioner in the instant case, as Endranto
is basing his eligibility for relief on Denan’s alleged
persecution. Endranto is therefore a derivative beneficiary of
Denan’s asylum application. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21 (2004).
- 2 -
petitioners fail to show that they are eligible for asylum, they
cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
We also find that petitioners fail to meet the standard
for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such
relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than
not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We find
that petitioners fail to make the requisite showing.
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 -