Parhusip v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Parhusip v. Holder

325 F. App'x 627

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 2009

DocketNo. 06-71165

StatusPublished

This text of 325 F. App'x 627 (Parhusip 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

Parhusip v. Holder, 325 F. App'x 627 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Preddi Parhusip, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

The agency denied Parhusip’s asylum claim as time-barred. Parhusip does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.

The agency failed to address Parhusip’s contention that he suffered past persecution, and his contention that he established a clear probability of persecution because he is a member of a disfavored group. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (“the BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2009). We therefore remand for the agency to address Parhusip’s claims in the first instance. See Sagaydak, 405 F.3d at 1040; see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

[628]*628Parhusip does not raise any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

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

**

Preddi Parhusip, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

The agency denied Parhusip’s asylum claim as time-barred. Parhusip does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.

The agency failed to address Parhusip’s contention that he suffered past persecution, and his contention that he established a clear probability of persecution because he is a member of a disfavored group. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (“the BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068-69 (9th Cir.2009). We therefore remand for the agency to address Parhusip’s claims in the first instance. See Sagaydak, 405 F.3d at 1040; see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

[628]*628Parhusip does not raise any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

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)

325 F. App'x 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parhusip-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack