UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1094
ANTONIUS MICHAEL RUSLI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-263-204)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 27, 2006
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew W. Rau, LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW W. RAU, Arlington, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Michele Y. F. Sarko,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Antonius Michael Rusli, 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.*
Rusli 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 it does
not compel a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the
relief Rusli seeks.
Similarly, as Rusli does not qualify for asylum, he is
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 is
*
Rusli does not challenge the Board’s denial of his
application for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Therefore, Rusli has waived appellate review of this claim. See
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
- 2 -
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 -