Indra Alimin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2029
INDRA ALIMIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 28, 2009 Decided: May 20, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eloise Rosas, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Michael F.
Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden
Latour, Assistant Director, Tracie N. Jones, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Indra Alimin, 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, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Alimin first challenges the determination that he
failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. 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 Alimin fails to show that the evidence compels a
contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that
he seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Alimin’s request
for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for
withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though
the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding
of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Alimin failed to
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher
standard 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
∗ Alimin failed to raise any challenges to the denial of his
request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He
has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)
(finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief
results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).

-- 3 of 3 --