Katung Tan v. William P. Barr, No. 12-1742 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Erickson, Grasz and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Substantial evidence supports the agency finding that petitioner Katung is not entitled to withholding of removal, and there was no abuse of discretion in the BIA's denial of petitioner Tan's motion to reopen.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 11-2918 ___________________________ Katung Petrus Tan; Lili Esther Tan; Daniel Pieter Tan; Sarah Tan lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ___________________________ No. 12-1742 ___________________________ Katung Petrus Tan; Lili Esther Tan; Daniel Pieter Tan; Sarah Tan lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: April 2, 2020 Filed: April 3, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated matters, Indonesian citizens Katung, Lili, Daniel and Sarah Tan (collectively, the Tans) petition for review of (1) an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ), which denied Katung withholding-of-removal relief; and (2) an order of the BIA denying their motion to reopen proceedings.1 Upon careful review, we conclude substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Katung was not entitled to withholding of removal. See Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review); Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405, 411-12 (8th Cir. 2007) (withholding-of-removal requirements); see also Gumaneh v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 785, 789-90 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2008) (recognizing limited derivative claims provided for in asylum statute are not available to withholding-of-removal applicants). We find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of the Tans’s motion to reopen. See Vargas v. Holder, 567 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); see also Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1 The Tans do not challenge the denial of asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting a claim not raised in an opening brief is waived). -2- 481, 484-85 (8th Cir. 2011) (requirements for motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel). The petitions for review are denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
