Riske Isye Sylvia Waani; Emelee Eugene Pelenkahu v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 4th Cir. 2001 stating failure to raise a claim in the opening…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1076
RISKE ISYE SYLVIA WAANI; EMELEE EUGENE
PELENKAHU,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-381-225; A98-381-226)
Submitted: July 27, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Mary Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation Counsel, Thomas B.
Fatouros, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

*As no argument is made concerning the denial of protection
under the Convention Against Torture, we find that this claim has
been abandoned on appeal. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326
(4th Cir. 2001) (stating failure to raise a claim in the opening
brief results in abandonment of that claim).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Riske Isye Sylvia Waani and her daughter, Emelee Eugene
Pelenkahu, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. * Waani is the primary
applicant; the claims of Pelenkahu are derivative of her
application. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(3) (West 2005); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.21(a) (2007).
In her petition for review, Waani maintains that she met
her burden of proof to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain
reversal of a determination denying such eligibility, an alien
“must show that the evidence [s]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 Waani
fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Waani’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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of
removal . . . .” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
2004). Because Waani fails to show that she is eligible for
asylum, she 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

-- 3 of 3 --