Narrative Opinion Summary
An Indonesian citizen petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that dismissed his appeal against the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court, exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, reviews the BIA's decision for substantial evidence. The petitioner's asylum application was deemed untimely due to the absence of changed or extraordinary circumstances, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(5). The court also finds that the BIA's denial of withholding of removal is supported by substantial evidence, as the petitioner's past experiences do not meet the threshold for past persecution, nor does he demonstrate an individualized risk of persecution upon return to Indonesia. Furthermore, the BIA's determination that the petitioner is ineligible for CAT relief is upheld, as he failed to demonstrate a likelihood of torture if returned to Indonesia. The petition for review is denied, with the court's decision designated as non-precedential under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Eligibility for Protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA correctly found that Pandapotan is not eligible for CAT relief, as he failed to prove the likelihood of torture upon return to Indonesia.
Reasoning: Additionally, the BIA correctly determined that Pandapotan is not eligible for CAT relief, as he did not prove a likelihood of torture if returned to Indonesia (referencing Malhi v. INS).
Jurisdiction for Review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews the BIA's decision for substantial evidence under the jurisdiction granted by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews the case for substantial evidence.
Timeliness of Asylum Application under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(5)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Pandapotan's asylum application was denied due to the lack of demonstration of changed or extraordinary circumstances that would justify the late filing.
Reasoning: The court finds that Pandapotan did not demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances that would excuse the late filing of his asylum application, as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(5) and supported by case law (Ramadan v. Gonzales).
Withholding of Removal and Substantial Evidence Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA's decision to deny withholding of removal is upheld as Pandapotan's past experiences do not constitute past persecution, nor does he demonstrate an individualized risk of future persecution.
Reasoning: Regarding withholding of removal, the BIA's denial is supported by substantial evidence; Pandapotan's past experiences, assessed both individually and collectively, do not meet the threshold for past persecution.