Wangunhardjo v. Ashcroft , 109 F. App'x 610 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1462
MILA IRANI WANGUNHARDJO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-229-550)
Submitted: September 8, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mila Irani Wangunhardjo, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi,
Gloria Minor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mila Irani Wangunhardjo, a native and citizen of
Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming without opinion the immigration
judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal and
withholding under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons
discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
Wangunhardjo challenges the Board’s finding that she
failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution.
The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive “unless
manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We have reviewed the immigration
judge’s decision and the administrative record and find the record
supports the conclusion that Wangunhardjo failed to establish her
eligibility for asylum on a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on the
alien to establish his eligibility for asylum); INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). Because the decision in
this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot grant the
relief Wangunhardjo seeks.
Additionally, we uphold the denial of Wangunhardjo’s
application for withholding of removal. The standard for
withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting
asylum. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To
- 2 -
qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate
“a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480
U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Wangunhardjo fails to show 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 -