June Budiarto v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A098-580-274. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999720948]. [15-1370]

Appeal: 15-1370

Doc: 21

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1370

JUNE BUDIARTO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

November 20, 2015

Decided:

December 18, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason A. Dzubow, DZUBOW & PILCHER, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Emily Anne Radbord, Assistant Director, Nehal
H. Kamani, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1370

Doc: 21

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
June Budiarto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions
for

review

of

an

order

of

the

Board

of

Immigration

Appeals

dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his
requests for asylum and withholding of removal. *

We deny the

petition for review.
We

have

reviewed

the

record,

including

the

supporting

evidence presented to the immigration court and the transcript
of

Budiarto’s

merits

hearing.

We

conclude

that

the

record

evidence does not compel any factual findings contrary to those
made by the immigration judge and affirmed by the Board, see 8
U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

(2012),

and

that

substantial

evidence

supports the Board’s decision to uphold the denial of Budiarto’s
applications

for

relief,

see

INS v.

Elias–Zacarias,

502

U.S.

478, 481 (1992) (“The BIA’s determination that [an applicant is]
not

eligible

for

asylum . . . can

be

reversed

only

if

the

evidence presented . . . [is] such that a reasonable factfinder
would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution
*

Budiarto did not challenge in his administrative appeal
the immigration judge’s denial of his application for relief
under the Convention Against Torture.
As such, to the extent
that Budiarto seeks review of the disposition of this claim, we
lack jurisdiction to consider it.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
(2012); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010)
(“It is well established that an alien must raise each argument
to the BIA before we have jurisdiction to consider it.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).

2

Appeal: 15-1370

Doc: 21

Filed: 12/18/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

existed.”).

Finally, the agency’s rejection of Budiarto’s past

persecution

claim,

which

was

predicated

exclusively

on

the

bombing of Budiarto’s church on Christmas Eve of 2000, is not
“‘manifestly contrary to the law.’”

Marynenka v. Holder, 592

F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)
(2012)); see Susanto v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 57, 59-60 (1st Cir.
2006) (upholding denial of past persecution claim asserted by
Indonesian

petitioners

based,

in

part,

on

church

bombing

by

Muslim extremists).
Accordingly,
reasons

stated

Mar. 11,
facts

by

2015).

and

materials

we

legal
before

deny

the
We

the

petition

Board.

dispense

See
with

In
oral

for
re:

Budiarto

argument

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

review

not

the

(B.I.A.

because

presented

would

for

the

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3