Anis Soenaryo v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1256
ANIS SOENARYO; ASNIL AMIRUDIN GADANG; AKHDAN
GADANG; AKMAL GADANG,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-1763
ANIS SOENARYO; ASNIL AMIRUDIN GADANG; AKHDAN
GADANG; AKMAL GADANG,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-905-265; A95-905-266; A95-905-267; A95-905-268)
Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 19, 2007

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Haitham Edward Ballout, LAW OFFICES OF HAITHAM EDWARD BALLOUT,
Burlingame, California, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Barbara C. Biddle, Sushma Soni,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Anis Soenaryo, and dependent petitioners Asnil Amirudin
Gadang, Akhdan Gadang, and Akmal Gadang, all natives and citizens
of Indonesia, petition for review of (1) an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration
Judge’s denial of Soenaryo’s applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture,
and (2) the Board’s order denying her subsequent motion to reopen.
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.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and
conclude that Soenaryo fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Soenaryo
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). Further, she failed to
demonstrate eligibility for protection under the Convention Against
Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).
In addition, our review discloses no abuse of discretion
in the Board’s denial of Soenaryo’s motion to reopen. See INS v.
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316,
324 (4th Cir. 2002); Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 640

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
(B.I.A. 1988). We grant the Attorney General’s motion to strike
the unexhausted arguments and exhibits one through ten of
Soenaryo’s supplemental brief. We deny the petitions for review
and 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.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --