Ki Johan v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 4th Cir. 2002 citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1233
KI JOHAN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-167-603)
Submitted: June 14, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ki Johan, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Song E.
Park, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*Johan raises no claims on appeal concerning the denial of
asylum or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ki Johan, 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 applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. * On appeal, Johan contends that the Board and the
immigration judge erred in denying his application for withholding
of removal. “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner
must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because
of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316,
324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430
(1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that Johan
failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.
We therefore find that substantial evidence supports the decision
of the Board, and uphold the denial of his request for withholding
of removal. 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

-- 2 of 2 --