Fnu Irwina 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UNPUBLISHED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. 05-1729
FNU IRWINA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-423-293)
Submitted: December 12, 2005 Decided: January 10, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aria Shariati, SHARIATI AND ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Fnu Irwina, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s order denying her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Irwina contends that
the Board and Immigration Judge erred in finding her ineligible for
withholding of removal and relief pursuant to CAT.
“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)).
To qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture, a
petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that “it is more
likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the
proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005).
Having conducted our review, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the finding that Irwina failed to meet these standards.
We accordingly 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 --