Mozes v. Gonzales , 237 F. App'x 803 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2117
JERRY MOZES; MELVA TAMPUBOLON; J.M.; Y.M.,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-1173
JERRY MOZES; MELVA TAMPUBOLON; J.M.; Y.M.,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERT R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A95-395-016; A98-710-635; A98-710-636; A98-710-637)
Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: July 5, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Leonard Schaitman, Peter R. Maier, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jerry Mozes,
his wife, Melva Tampubolon, and their two minor children, natives
and citizens of Indonesia (“Petitioners”), petition for review of
two separate orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”).
In No. 06-2117, the Board adopted and affirmed the immigration
judge’s decision denying the Petitioners’ requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture, and in No. 07-1173, the Board denied their motion to
reopen.
In their petition for review in No. 06-2117, the
Petitioners challenge the determination that they failed to
establish their eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a
determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show
that the evidence 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 the Petitioners
fail to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Moreover, we find that substantial evidence supports the
immigration judge’s determination that the Petitioners failed to
meet their burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable
for them to relocate to another part of Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R.
- 3 -
§ 1208.13(b)(3)(i) (2006). We therefore uphold the denial of
asylum relief.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of the Petitioners’
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
ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of
removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because the Petitioners fail to
show that they are eligible for asylum, they cannot meet the higher
standard for withholding of removal. See also 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B) (2006) (providing that an alien is not
eligible for withholding of removal if internal relocation is a
reasonable option).* Accordingly, we deny the petition for review
in No. 06-2117.
In No. 07-1173, we find that the Petitioners have failed
to raise any issues pertaining to the Board’s denial of their
motion to reopen. We therefore find that they have failed to
preserve any issues for review, see Edwards, 178 F.3d at 241 n.6,
*
In their brief before this court, the Petitioners have failed
to raise any challenges to the denial of their request for
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore find
that they have waived appellate review of this claim. See
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999).
- 4 -
and deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In re: Mozes, No. A95-395-016(L) (B.I.A. Feb. 8, 2007).
Accordingly, we deny both 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
- 5 -