Narrative Opinion Summary
An Indonesian citizen petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision, which upheld an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA, operating under the jurisdictional authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1252, conducted a review based on substantial evidence. The asylum application was dismissed as time-barred, effectively terminating that claim. Furthermore, the IJ's denial of withholding of removal was affirmed because the petitioner did not demonstrate past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution, even under the disfavored group analysis for Christian Indonesians. The evidence did not establish a pattern or practice of persecution against this group in Indonesia. The petitioner also did not challenge the IJ's rejection of CAT protection in his opening brief, which led to the abandonment of that issue. As a result, the petition for review was denied, with the decision not intended for publication or precedent pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abandonment of Issues on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Tondang's failure to contest the denial of CAT protection in his opening brief resulted in the abandonment of this issue.
Reasoning: Tondang did not contest the IJ’s finding regarding his ineligibility for protection under CAT in his opening brief, leading to the conclusion that this issue is deemed abandoned.
Jurisdiction of Board of Immigration Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA's jurisdiction to review the IJ's decision arises under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Reasoning: The BIA has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and the review is based on substantial evidence.
Pattern or Practice of Persecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Tondang failed to show a pattern or practice of persecution against Christian Indonesians, undermining his claim for withholding of removal.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the evidence does not establish that religious strife in Indonesia constitutes a pattern or practice of persecution against Christian Indonesians.
Time-barred Asylum Applicationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Tondang's application for asylum was denied as it was filed beyond the statutory time limit, thus ending his asylum claim.
Reasoning: The IJ's denial of Tondang's asylum application was deemed time-barred, which effectively ends his asylum claim.
Withholding of Removal and Past Persecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The denial of withholding of removal was upheld due to the lack of evidence that Tondang experienced past persecution.
Reasoning: Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal, as Tondang's experiences did not qualify as past persecution.