Erlina Winata v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Erlina Winata v. Loretta E. Lynch

644 F. App'x 719

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 2016

Docket13-70260

StatusUnpublished

This text of 644 F. App'x 719 (Erlina Winata v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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

Erlina Winata v. Loretta E. Lynch, 644 F. App'x 719 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Erlina Christiani Winata and Hendrik Susanto Lie, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their 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 the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the government rebutted petitioners’ presumption of future persecution by establishing a fundamental change in circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.2003) (record did not compel the conclusion that the government failed to rebut the presumption of future persecution); cf. Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1082, 1091-92 (9th Cir.2005). We reject petitioners’ contentions that the agency erred in its analysis or did not consider Winata’s explanations for her numerous lengthy returns to Indonesia. Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claim because they failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indonesian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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 **

Erlina Christiani Winata and Hendrik Susanto Lie, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their 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 the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the government rebutted petitioners’ presumption of future persecution by establishing a fundamental change in circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998-99 (9th Cir.2003) (record did not compel the conclusion that the government failed to rebut the presumption of future persecution); cf. Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1082, 1091-92 (9th Cir.2005). We reject petitioners’ contentions that the agency erred in its analysis or did not consider Winata’s explanations for her numerous lengthy returns to Indonesia. Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’ CAT claim because they failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indonesian government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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)

644 F. App'x 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erlina-winata-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack