Lise Adriani Koha v. Alberto R. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2267
LISE ADRIANI KOHA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-623-399)
Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 18, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard T. Mei, LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD T. MEI, Bethesda, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Diane Kelleher, Office of
Immigration Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

*We note Koha has abandoned challenges to the immigration
judge’s decision that she was not eligible for withholding from
removal or withholding under the CAT. She did not raise challenges
to these findings in her brief.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lise Adriani Koha, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s decision denying
her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding
under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition for
review.
The INA authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum
on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (2000). It defines a refugee
as a person unwilling or unable to return to her 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)
(2000). Substantial evidence supports the finding that Koha failed
to show entitlement to asylum because the past events that were the
basis for her asylum application did not establish persecution.*
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 --