Septantho Floribertus; v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEPTANTHO FLORIBERTUS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71334
Agency Nos. A097-618-188
A097-618-190
A097-618-191
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Septantho Floribertus and his family, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Floribertus’
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71334 2
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law and review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny
the petition for review.
Contrary to petitioners’ assertion that the BIA did not affirm the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision “based upon and for
the reasons set forth therein” and specifically found no clear error in the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089,
1093 (9th Cir. 2002). In their opening brief, petitioners fail to raise any challenge
to the agency’s adverse credibility determination, which is dispositive of
Floribertus’ asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported
by argument are deemed abandoned).
Petitioners’ counsel is advised that the opening brief falls below the court’s
standards.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --