Tri Budiono v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090521

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2123

TRI EFENDY BUDIONO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

April 17, 2009

Decided:

May 21, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

H. Raymond Fasano, MADEO & FASANO, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tri Efendy Budiono, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge's order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against

Torture ("CAT").

Budiono claims there is a pattern or practice

of persecution in Indonesia against Christians and non-Muslims who are ethnic Chinese. The asylum on any INA We deny the petition for review. the U.S.C. Attorney § General to confer It

authorizes 8

refugee.

1158(a)(1)

(2006).

defines a refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native country "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). infliction or threat of death, "Persecution involves the or injury to one's

torture,

person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds . . . ." Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Applicants bear the burden of proving eligibility for asylum." Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2006); An alien can establish his

see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008).

eligibility for asylum by proving he has a well-founded fear of 2

future

persecution

on

a

protected

ground.

8

C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(b)(2) (2008); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). The alien need not show he would be

individually targeted for persecution if he shows there is "a pattern or practice in his or her country of nationality . . . of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii) (2008). persecution, it must be 8 C.F.R.

To be a pattern or practice of pervasive or organized."

"systemic,

Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 991 (8th Cir. 2004). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum will be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 findings of fact are conclusive

"[A]dministrative

unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We will

reverse the Board's decision "only if the evidence presented . . . was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d quotation marks and

citations omitted).

Because the Board added its own reasoning

when it adopted the immigration judge's decision, this court

3

will review both decisions. 511 n.8 (4th Cir. 2007). We result. find the

Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505,

evidence

does

not

compel

a

different

Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that

Budiono did not meet his burden of proof by showing a systemic or organized movement by the Indonesian government or Muslims to persecute ethnic Chinese or non-Muslims. Board was not obligated to determine We further note the or not ethnic

whether

Chinese were a disfavored group, as that term is used in Sael v Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 925-27 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal

argument

because

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

4