June Budiarto v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1370 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1370 JUNE BUDIARTO, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, reasons stated Mar. 11, facts by 2015). and materials we legal before deny the We the petition Board. dispense See with In oral for re: Budiarto argument contentions are adequately this and argument court review not the (B.I.A. because presented would for the in the aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
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.
