Narrative Opinion Summary
An Indonesian citizen petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order, which had dismissed her appeal following the denial of her asylum application and request for withholding of removal by an immigration judge. The court, possessing jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, evaluated the case based on substantial evidence. The BIA rejected the asylum claim as time-barred, a determination unchallenged by the petitioner. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner did not experience persecution in Indonesia and failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution as a member of a disfavored group. Additionally, the evidence did not compel a finding of a pattern or practice of persecution against Christians in Indonesia. Consequently, the petition for withholding of removal was denied. The court denied the petition for review, and the decision is not intended for publication nor does it establish precedent, except as specified by the Ninth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction over Immigration Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has the authority to review decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals under specific statutory provisions.
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 evidence must compel a finding of an ongoing pattern or practice of persecution against a particular group, which was not substantiated for Christians in Indonesia.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the evidence does not compel a finding of a pattern or practice of persecution against Christians in Indonesia.
Publication and Precedential Value of Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This decision is not intended for publication and does not establish precedent, except as specified by local circuit rules.
Reasoning: The petition for review is denied, and this decision is not intended for publication and does not establish precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard for Withholding of Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution based on membership in a disfavored group, which was not achieved in this case.
Reasoning: Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that her experiences in Indonesia did not amount to persecution and that she failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution as a member of a disfavored group due to insufficient individualized risk.
Time-Barred Asylum Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA's denial of the asylum claim is upheld due to the petitioner's failure to contest the time-barred determination.
Reasoning: The BIA denied Siringo Ringo’s asylum claim as time-barred, a finding she does not contest in her brief.