Narrative Opinion Summary
Kurnia’s appeal regarding past persecution was denied, with the Immigration Judge's (IJ) findings being supported by substantial evidence. Kurnia did not successfully demonstrate that the alleged acts of persecution were committed by the government or individuals that the government could not control, which is a requirement to establish past persecution. Consequently, the IJ's conclusion that Kurnia failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution was also backed by substantial evidence. As a result, Kurnia's asylum claim was rejected, leading to the failure of his claim for withholding of removal. Additionally, Kurnia did not prove that it is more likely than not that he would face torture upon return to Indonesia, which upheld the IJ's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. The petition is therefore denied, and publication of this disposition is not permitted per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Non-Publication of Dispositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in Kurnia's case cannot be published, in accordance with Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The petition is therefore denied, and publication of this disposition is not permitted per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Past Persecution Standard in Asylum Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Kurnia did not meet the burden of proving past persecution because he failed to show that the persecution was committed by the government or forces the government could not control.
Reasoning: Kurnia did not successfully demonstrate that the alleged acts of persecution were committed by the government or individuals that the government could not control, which is a requirement to establish past persecution.
Protection under the Convention Against Torturesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The IJ's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture was upheld since Kurnia did not prove it was more likely than not that he would face torture upon return to Indonesia.
Reasoning: Additionally, Kurnia did not prove that it is more likely than not that he would face torture upon return to Indonesia, which upheld the IJ's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that Kurnia failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution, as substantial evidence supported the IJ's conclusion.
Reasoning: Consequently, the IJ's conclusion that Kurnia failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution was also backed by substantial evidence.
Withholding of Removal under Immigration Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Kurnia's claim for withholding of removal was rejected because his asylum claim was denied, showing that the standards for asylum and withholding of removal were not met.
Reasoning: As a result, Kurnia's asylum claim was rejected, leading to the failure of his claim for withholding of removal.