June Budiarto v. Loretta Lynch ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1370
JUNE BUDIARTO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 20, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason A. Dzubow, DZUBOW & PILCHER, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Emily Anne Radbord, Assistant Director, Nehal
H. Kamani, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
June Budiarto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his
requests for asylum and withholding of removal. * We deny the
petition for review.
We have reviewed the record, including the supporting
evidence presented to the immigration court and the transcript
of Budiarto’s merits hearing. We conclude that the record
evidence does not compel any factual findings contrary to those
made by the immigration judge and affirmed by the Board, see 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence
supports the Board’s decision to uphold the denial of Budiarto’s
applications for relief, see INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 (1992) (“The BIA’s determination that [an applicant is]
not eligible for asylum . . . can be reversed only if the
evidence presented . . . [is] such that a reasonable factfinder
would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution
*
Budiarto did not challenge in his administrative appeal
the immigration judge’s denial of his application for relief
under the Convention Against Torture. As such, to the extent
that Budiarto seeks review of the disposition of this claim, we
lack jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
(2012); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010)
(“It is well established that an alien must raise each argument
to the BIA before we have jurisdiction to consider it.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
2
existed.”). Finally, the agency’s rejection of Budiarto’s past
persecution claim, which was predicated exclusively on the
bombing of Budiarto’s church on Christmas Eve of 2000, is not
“‘manifestly contrary to the law.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592
F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)
(2012)); see Susanto v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 57, 59-60 (1st Cir.
2006) (upholding denial of past persecution claim asserted by
Indonesian petitioners based, in part, on church bombing by
Muslim extremists).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Budiarto (B.I.A.
Mar. 11, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3