Enoch v. Holder , 381 F. App'x 711 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROLLY STEVANES ENOCH, No. 07-72242
Petitioner, Agency No. A093-321-787
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Rolly Stevanes Enoch, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Fakhry v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for
review.
Enoch did not allege that he experienced past persecution or any harm in
Indonesia. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal because Enoch did not establish a clear probability of persecution on
account of his Christian religion, see Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th
Cir. 2007) (en banc), or his status as a publisher of a Christian newsletter, see
Fakhry, 524 F.3d at 1066. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding
that Enoch failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in
Indonesia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2009).
Enoch does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as
time-barred or the denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against
Torture. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-72242