UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1633
BINSAR RIONALD SIAHAAN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-536-096)
Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 13, 2006
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Christopher T.
Dong, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Binsar Rionald Siahaan, a native and citizen of
Indonesia, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s order
denying his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.* He claims that
the Board erred in affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his
application for withholding of removal. “To qualify for
withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a
clear probability of persecution because of his race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002)
(citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on our
review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports
the Board’s decision that Siahaan has failed to meet this standard.
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
*
On motion of the Attorney General, this court, by order of
November 7, 2005, limited the scope of the appeal to preclude a
challenge to the Board’s ruling that the asylum application was
untimely. In addition, as Siahaan does not challenge the Board’s
denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, any
claim concerning that issue is waived. See Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -