Fauzi v. Gonzales, No. 06-1153 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1153 SUMARNI FAUZI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. No. 06-1641 SUMARNI FAUZI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A98-395-530) Submitted: October 16, 2006 Decided: November 21, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Armin A. Skalmowski, Alhambra, California, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Sumarni Fauzi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, challenges two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). In No. 06-1153, Fauzi seeks review of an order of the Board affirming the immigration judge s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* In No. 06-1641, Fauzi petitions for review of a Board order denying her motion to reopen the removal proceedings. Fauzi challenges the Board s denial of withholding of removal. To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board s holding that Fauzi failed to meet this standard. Fauzi also alleges that the Board erred in denying her protection under the Convention Against Torture. this protection, a petitioner bears the burden To qualify for of proof of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that he or she would * Fauzi does not challenge the Board s denial of asylum relief on the ground that the asylum application was untimely filed. - 3 - be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. C.F.R. ยง 1208.16(c)(2) (2006). 8 Fauzi failed to make such a showing. Finally, in No. 06-1641, Fauzi challenges the Board s denial of her motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Sept. 18, 2006) (No. 06-6650). with extreme Denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor such motions. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). This court reverses the Board s denial of such a motion only if the denial is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. F.3d at 745. Barry, 445 We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Accordingly, we deny Fauzi s 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 - 4 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
