Case Name: Lisa RUSLI, Hendra Lay, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-27
Citations: 282 F. App'x 1
Docket Number: No. 06-1941
Parties: Lisa RUSLI, Hendra Lay, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before LIPEZ, Circuit Judge, TASHIMA, Senior Circuit Judge, and HOWARD, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 282
Pages: 1–1

Head Matter:
Lisa RUSLI, Hendra Lay, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-1941.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
June 27, 2008.
Yan Wang on brief for petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Michelle G. Latour, Assistant Director and Jessica E. Sherman, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, on brief for respondent.
Before LIPEZ, Circuit Judge, TASHIMA, Senior Circuit Judge, and HOWARD, Circuit Judge.
Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has been substituted for former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
Of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lisa Rusli and her husband, Hendra Lay, are citizens of Indonesia and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based upon Rush's experiences as a Christian of Chinese ancestry in Indonesia. The immigration judge denied relief and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Petitioners then filed a petition for review, which we now summarily deny. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).
The brief filed by petitioners' counsel, Yan Wang, is a "cut and paste" affair that appears to present the facts of another case — notably for a person of a different gender than Rush, who had different experiences, in different years, and appeared before a different immigration judge. This substantive failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 alone justifies dismissal. See generally Ramírez v. Debs-Elías, 407 F.3d 444, 446 n. 1 (1st Cir.2005). Further, the brief, by definition, offers no developed argument directed to petitioners' claims, with the necessary consequence that the claims are waived. See Jiang v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir.2007) (citing United, States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990)). Moreover, after reviewing the record we conclude that Rush's claims fall well short of establishing the requisite eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT. See, e.g., Attia v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 21, 24 (1st Cir.2007); Susanto v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 57, 59-61 (1st Cir.2006).
It is so ordered.
. Lay's request for relief is derivative of his spouse's.