Jemmy Fersn Sekeon; Steven Hennry Sekeon 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UNPUBLISHED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. 05-1688
JEMMY FERSN SEKEON; STEVEN HENNRY SEKEON,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-192-592; A97-624-168)
Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: January 19, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alex Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Peter
D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

*The Sekeons do not challenge the Board’s denial of the asylum
claim as untimely or the denial of protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jemmy Fersn Sekeon and Steven Hennry Sekeon, brothers,
are natives and citizens of Indonesia. The Sekeons petition for
review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the immigration judge’s order denying their request for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. * They claim that the Board erred in affirming the
immigration judge’s denial of their applications for withholding of
removal. “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)).
Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial
evidence supports the Board’s decision that the Sekeons have failed
to meet this standard. 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 --