UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2374
ANTHONIUS SUSANTO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-195-320)
Submitted: July 17, 2006 Decided: July 26, 2006
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Michele Y. F. Sarko,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Anthonius Susanto, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his
requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture.*
Susanto challenges the immigration judge’s determination
that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of an adverse eligibility determination, 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 Susanto
fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief he seeks.
Similarly, as Susanto does not qualify for asylum, he is
also ineligible for withholding of removal. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). “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
*
Susanto does not challenge the Board’s denial of his
application for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Therefore, this claim is abandoned. See Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Id.
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 -