Ariahadi v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Ariahadi v. Mukasey

276 F. App'x 567

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 2008

DocketNo. 03-74634

StatusPublished

This text of 276 F. App'x 567 (Ariahadi v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ariahadi v. Mukasey, 276 F. App'x 567 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Seno Ariahadi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his request for voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2001), and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination, so we take Ariahadi’s factual contentions as true. See Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir.2000). Ariahadi is not eligible for withholding of removal because the harassment and threats he experienced do not compel a finding of past persecution, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1014-18 (9th Cir.2003), and he did not “demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution on one of the specified grounds.” Al-Harbi, 242 F.3d at 888 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); cf. Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

Ariahadi also did not demonstrate that he is entitled to protection under CAT because he did not establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if removed to Indonesia. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

Ariahadi’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights in denying voluntary departure fails because Ariahadi was not prevented from reasonably presenting [568]*568his case. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Seno Ariahadi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his request for voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2001), and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination, so we take Ariahadi’s factual contentions as true. See Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir.2000). Ariahadi is not eligible for withholding of removal because the harassment and threats he experienced do not compel a finding of past persecution, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1014-18 (9th Cir.2003), and he did not “demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution on one of the specified grounds.” Al-Harbi, 242 F.3d at 888 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); cf. Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

Ariahadi also did not demonstrate that he is entitled to protection under CAT because he did not establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if removed to Indonesia. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

Ariahadi’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights in denying voluntary departure fails because Ariahadi was not prevented from reasonably presenting [568]*568his case. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 F. App'x 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ariahadi-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack