Lisa Rusli, Hendra Lay v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General Michael B. *
Mukasey has been substituted for former Attorney General Alberto R.
Gonzales.
Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. **
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 06-1941
LISA RUSLI,
HENDRA LAY,
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,*
United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Lipez, Circuit Judge,
Tashima, Senior Circuit Judge, **
and Howard, Circuit Judge.
Yan Wang on brief for petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Michelle G. Latour, Assistant Director and Jessica E. Sherman,
Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, on
brief for respondent.
June 27, 2008

-- 1 of 3 --

Lay's request for relief is derivative of his spouse's. 1
-2-
Per curiam. Lisa Rusli and her husband, Hendra Lay, are
citizens of Indonesia and sought asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based
upon Rusli's experiences as a Christian of Chinese ancestry in 1
Indonesia. The immigration judge denied relief and the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirmed. Petitioners then filed a petition
for review, which we now summarily deny. See 1st Cir. Loc. R.
27(c).
The brief filed by petitioners' counsel, Yan Wang, is a
"cut and paste" affair that appears to present the facts of another
case -- notably for a person of a different gender than Rusli, who
had different experiences, in different years, and appeared before
a different immigration judge. This substantive failure to comply
with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 alone justifies
dismissal. See generally Ramírez v. Debs-Elías, 407 F.3d 444, 446
n.1 (1st Cir. 2005). Further, the brief, by definition, offers no
developed argument directed to petitioners' claims, with the
necessary consequence that the claims are waived. See Jiang v.
Gonzales, 474 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing United States v.
Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990). Moreover, after reviewing
the record we conclude that Rusli's claims fall well short of
establishing the requisite eligibility for asylum, withholding of
removal, or protection under the CAT. See, e.g., Attia v.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Gonzales, 477 F.3d 21, 24 (1st Cir. 2007); Susanto v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 57, 59-61 (1st Cir. 2006).
It is so ordered.

-- 3 of 3 --