Agus Lu v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AGUS INDA LU, No. 14-70711
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-121-759
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Agus Inda Lu, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Lu established changed or
extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Lu’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Lu
suffered in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558
F.3d at 1059-60 (petitioner failed to establish past persecution where he was beaten
and robbed on two occasions and accosted by a mob); see also Halim v. Holder,
590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner who was harassed, denied medical
care, arrested and detained, and beaten by a mob did not establish past
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
even under a disfavored group analysis, Lu failed to show sufficient individualized
risk of persecution to establish a well-founded fear. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977-
79. Thus, Lu’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Lu failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with
2 14-70711
the consent or acquiescence of the government of Indonesia. See Aden v. Holder,
589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-70711