Sumarni Fauzi 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UNPUBLISHED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. 06-1153
SUMARNI FAUZI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
No. 06-1641
SUMARNI FAUZI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-395-530)

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
Submitted: October 16, 2006 Decided: November 21, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Armin A. Skalmowski, Alhambra, California, for Petitioner. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 2 of 4 --

*Fauzi does not challenge the Board’s denial of asylum relief
on the ground that the asylum application was untimely filed.
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Sumarni Fauzi, a native
and citizen of Indonesia, challenges two orders of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board). In No. 06-1153, Fauzi seeks review of
an order of the Board affirming the immigration judge’s order
denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. * In No. 06-1641,
Fauzi petitions for review of a Board order denying her motion to
reopen the removal proceedings.
Fauzi challenges the Board’s denial of withholding of
removal. “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must
show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of
h[er] 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 holding that Fauzi failed
to meet this standard.
Fauzi also alleges that the Board erred in denying her
protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for
this protection, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of
demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that he or she would

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006). Fauzi failed to make such a
showing.
Finally, in No. 06-1641, Fauzi challenges the Board’s
denial of her motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion
to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314,
323-24 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir.
2006), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Sept. 18,
2006) (No. 06-6650). Denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed
with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not
contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor such
motions. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).
This court reverses the Board’s denial of such a motion only if the
denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry, 445
F.3d at 745. We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to reopen.
Accordingly, we deny Fauzi’s petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --