Sujono v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ERIWATI SUJONO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-638-962)
September 13, 2006
October 4, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eriwati Sujono, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Song E. Park, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Eriwati Sujono, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Board's finding that she failed to Sujono challenges the qualify for asylum and
withholding of removal. 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." 478, 483-84 (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
We have reviewed the evidence of record and
conclude that Sujono fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Sujono
cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?