Soeth

Soeth v. Ashcroft

Good Law
100 F. App'x 704
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 14, 2004No. 03-70303; Agency No. A75-696-058California367 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mumu Cindy Soeth and Raymond Gerald Soeth, wife and husband and natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance without opinion of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1), and we deny the petition for review.

Where the BIA affirms the decision of the IJ without opinion, under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 (e)(4) (now 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (e)(7)), we review the IJ’s decision. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 855 (9th Cir.2003). We review the IJ’s denial of eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evi *705 dence. Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1253-54 (9th Cir.2003); Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003). We must therefore affirm the IJ’s finding “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” that the petitioners had met their burden of establishing either past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or a clear probability of persecution or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.