Ana Liana et al v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-1764 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1764 ANA LIANA; ANDY MANTJOENG; MANTJOENG; HANJOKO SETIAWAN, YANI MANTJOENG; SICILIA Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 10, 2011 Decided: March 21, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Judith R. O Sullivan, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ana Liana, her husband, Andy Mantjoeng, their married daughter, Sicilia Mantjoeng, their unmarried daughter, Yani Mantjoeng, and Sicilia s husband, Hanjoko Setiawan (collectively Petitioners ), natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge s denial of their requests for asylum and withholding of removal. Before this court, the Petitioners challenge the determination that they failed to establish their eligibility for relief. not They contend that the credibility determination was supported by specific and cogent reasoning and that the Board and the immigration judge erred in concluding that they failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in Indonesia on account of their Chinese ethnicity and Christian religion. A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). INS v. Elias- Administrative findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. reviewed 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). de novo, affording appropriate 2 Legal issues are deference to the [Board] s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations. Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). This Court will reverse the . Board only if the evidence . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at requisite fear of persecution. 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, [t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum is conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion. Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that substantial evidence supports both the agency s adverse credibility determination and the finding that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in Indonesia. We therefore uphold the and denial removal. of their requests for asylum withholding of See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004) ( 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). ). 3 Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION 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.
