Jemail v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD HENKIE RAJO; OLLY No. 07-72099
FONNY RGAHANG; OSCEAN
SWINGLY RAJO, Agency Nos. A096-351-539
A096-351-540
Petitioners, A096-351-542
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Henkie Rajo, and his wife and son, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
*
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).
KAD/Research 1
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused the untimely filing of petitioners’ asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners’
experiences of harassment and religious discrimination do not rise to the level of
past persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish a clear probability of persecution because, even if the disfavored
group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004)
applies to petitioners, Seventh Day Adventist Christians, they have not
demonstrated the requisite individualized risk of persecution. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d
1049 (“[A]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
KAD/Research 2 07-72099
considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail[.]”).
Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or
practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary at 1060-62.
Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners are not entitled to CAT relief because they failed to establish it is more
likely than not that they will be tortured upon return to Indonesia. See Malhi v.
INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
KAD/Research 3 07-72099