UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2321
EDDY SUCIPTO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-1359
EDDY SUCIPTO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-186-985)
Submitted: June 20, 2005 Decided: August 5, 2005
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Raymond Fasano, MADEO & FESANO, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle
Gorden, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C.; Gregory
Victor Davis, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Eddy Sucipto, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.* Sucipto contends
that he established eligibility for asylum. As the IJ and Board
concluded that the asylum application was untimely, we find that
consideration of Sucipto’s asylum claim is barred. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2000).
Sucipto also challenges the finding that he failed to
qualify for withholding of removal. See Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198,
205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430
(1987). 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 Sucipto fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result.
*
Sucipto also seeks review of the Board’s order of March 8,
2005, denying his motion to reopen. He has not, however, presented
any claims to the court regarding this order. Likewise, he has not
challenged the denial of protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
- 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 -