Pandapotan v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Pandapotan v. Holder

316 F. App'x 583

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 2009

DocketNo. 06-75145

StatusPublished

This text of 316 F. App'x 583 (Pandapotan v. Holder) 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

Pandapotan v. Holder, 316 F. App'x 583 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Verdu Pandapotan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 Pan-dapotan’s 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, Pandapo-tan’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal because Pandapotan’s experiences, considered both individually and cumulatively, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Na-goulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-18. In addition, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004) applies to Christian Indonesians in the context of withholding of removal, Pandapotan did not establish any individualized risk and consequently failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he will be persecuted if he returns to Indonesia. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Pandapotan is not entitled to CAT relief because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Verdu Pandapotan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 Pan-dapotan’s 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, Pandapo-tan’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal because Pandapotan’s experiences, considered both individually and cumulatively, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Na-goulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-18. In addition, even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004) applies to Christian Indonesians in the context of withholding of removal, Pandapotan did not establish any individualized risk and consequently failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he will be persecuted if he returns to Indonesia. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Pandapotan is not entitled to CAT relief because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 F. App'x 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pandapotan-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack