Kemal v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HASANAL KEMAL, No. 07-72426
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-618-176
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Hasanal Kemal, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
*
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).
PR/Research
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Hoxha
v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003), and de novo questions of law,
Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed circumstances
excused the untimely filing of Kemal’s asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal
because Kemal failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be
persecuted either as a member of a particular social group comprised of
Indonesians with United States citizen children, as a moderate Muslim, or as an
Americanized Indonesian. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1184-85.
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because
Kemal failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned
to Indonesia. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2004). Further,
we reject Kemal’s contention that the IJ used the wrong standard in denying CAT
PR/Research 2 07-72426
relief because it is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
PR/Research 3 07-72426