Dermawan v. Gonzales

05-60691Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitJun 13, 2006

Full text

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60691
Summary Calendar
RUBYANTO DERMAWAN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 607 166
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rubyanto Dermawan, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Dermawan argues that he demonstrated past persecution on account
of his ethnicity and a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Because Dermawan does not address the BIA’s finding that his
application for asylum is time-barred, he has abandoned the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-60691
-2-
issue, and we will not review it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Likewise, he has abandoned his
argument for relief under the CAT by failing to discuss the issue
in his brief. Id.
With respect to Dermawan’s claim for withholding of removal,
he testified that he was discriminated against and was the victim
of crime because of his ethnicity. We conclude, however, that
the BIA’s determination that Dermawan’s treatment did not rise to
the level of persecution is supported by substantial evidence,
and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Eduard
v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004); Ozdemir v. INS,
46 F.3d 6, 7-8 (5th Cir. 1994); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th
Cir. 1994).
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.