Case ID: f-appx_185/html/0331-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rubyanto DERMAWAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60691
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 13, 2006.
    Haroen Calehr, Calehr & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Elizabeth J. Stevens, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, David B. Edwards, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    
      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 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.