Case Name: Jemmy Fersn SEKEON; Steven Hennry Sekeon, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-19
Citations: 161 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 05-1688
Parties: Jemmy Fersn SEKEON; Steven Hennry Sekeon, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 338–338

Head Matter:
Jemmy Fersn SEKEON; Steven Hennry Sekeon, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-1688.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dee. 16, 2005.
Decided Jan. 19, 2006.
Alex Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jemmy Fersn Sekeon and Steven Hennry Sekeon, brothers, are natives and citizens of Indonesia. The Sekeons petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge's order denying their request for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. They claim that the Board erred in affirming the immigration judge's denial of their applications for withholding of removal. "To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n. 13 (4th Cir.2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that the Sekeons have failed to meet this standard. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
The Sekeons do not challenge the Board's denial of the asylum claim as untimely or the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture.