Muong
Muong v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Sibopha Muong, his wife, and his two children, all natives of Cambodia and citizens of New Zealand, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We deny the petition.
The BIA’s decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). To justify a reversal of the BIA’s decision, the evidence must compel the opposite result. Id. at 483-84 , 112 S.Ct. 812 .
The BIA did not err when it determined that Muong was not entitled to asylum. *737 The evidence demonstrated that Muong and his family lived peacefully in New Zealand for over six years and obtained citizenship there. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (c)(2)(i)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 208.15 (a); Cheo v. INS, 162 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.1998). Muong remained in New Zea-land considerably longer than necessary to arrange onward travel, and his living arrangements were not restricted by the authorities in New Zealand. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion…