UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2337
JENI SRIHARJATI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 22, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior
Litigation Counsel, David H. Wetmore, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeni Sriharjati, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s decision denying her requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Sriharjati first challenges the determination that she
failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an
alien “must show that the evidence [s]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 Sriharjati fails to show that the evidence compels
a contrary result. We therefore find that substantial evidence
supports the denial of relief. *
*
We note that we lack jurisdiction to consider Sriharjati’s
claim that the immigration judge violated her due process rights
by relying on impermissible hearsay--namely, the criminal
records pertaining to Megawaty Gandasaputra. Sriharjati failed
to exhaust her administrative remedies by presenting this claim
to the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (2006) (“A court may
review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has
exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as
of right. . . .”); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th
Cir. 2008) (holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to
consider an argument that was not raised before the Board and
providing no exception for manifest injustice).
2
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Sriharjati’s
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
Sriharjati failed to show that she is eligible for asylum, she
cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
Finally, we find that substantial evidence supports
the finding that Sriharjati failed 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) (2009). We find
that Sriharjati failed to make the requisite showing before the
immigration court.
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