Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a petition for review by an Indonesian national challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his appeal against the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The United States Court of Appeals has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The BIA ruled the asylum application as time-barred, a finding unchallenged by the petitioner. The court affirmed the denial of withholding of removal, citing substantial evidence that the petitioner did not experience past persecution, as a single incident of being attacked with rocks was insufficient. Furthermore, he failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution or an individualized risk despite being part of a disfavored group. The record did not substantiate a pattern or practice of persecution against Christians in Indonesia. The denial of CAT relief was also upheld as the petitioner did not prove it was more likely than not that he would face torture upon return to Indonesia. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. This decision is not published and does not establish precedent, except as indicated in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Asylum Claim Time-Barredsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The asylum claim was dismissed as time-barred, and this finding was uncontested by the petitioner.
Reasoning: The BIA denied Mambo's asylum claim as time-barred, a finding he does not contest.
Individualized Risk Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner failed to show an individualized risk of future persecution despite potentially being a member of a disfavored group.
Reasoning: Furthermore, he failed to prove a clear probability of future persecution; even if considered a member of a disfavored group, he did not show an individualized risk.
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercises jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision regarding asylum and removal proceedings.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews the case for substantial evidence.
Pattern or Practice of Persecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The record does not support a finding of a pattern or practice of persecution against Christians in Indonesia.
Reasoning: The record also does not compel a finding of a pattern or practice of persecution against Christians in Indonesia.
Relief under the Convention Against Torturesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Relief under CAT was denied as the petitioner did not establish a likelihood of facing torture upon return to Indonesia.
Reasoning: The denial of CAT relief is also upheld, as Mambo did not establish that it is more likely than not he would face torture if returned to Indonesia.
Withholding of Removal - Substantial Evidence Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirms the denial of withholding of removal as the petitioner failed to demonstrate past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution.
Reasoning: The court affirms the denial of withholding of removal based on substantial evidence. Mambo did not demonstrate past persecution, as a single incident of being attacked with rocks by Muslims was deemed insufficient.