Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an Indonesian national petitioning for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, which upheld an immigration judge's denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court's jurisdiction is based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252, applying de novo review for due process claims and substantial evidence review for factual findings. The petition was denied, as the petitioner did not demonstrate past persecution due to his Chinese ethnicity, nor did he show a significant individualized risk of future persecution, which is necessary for withholding of removal. Additionally, the petitioner failed to establish a probability of torture if returned to Indonesia, leading to the denial of CAT relief. The due process claims were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of prejudice. Ultimately, the petition for review was denied, with the court's decision not intended for publication or as precedent, in accordance with 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief Criteriasubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The denial of CAT relief was upheld as the petitioner did not prove a likelihood of torture upon return to Indonesia.
Reasoning: Additionally, substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT relief, as Hendra did not prove a likelihood of torture if returned to Indonesia.
Due Process Claims in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner's due process claims were rejected due to the absence of established prejudice.
Reasoning: His due process claims were also rejected due to a lack of established prejudice.
Review of Immigration Appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision and applies de novo review for due process claims and substantial evidence review for factual findings.
Reasoning: Jurisdiction is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, with de novo review for due process claims and substantial evidence review for factual findings.
Standard for Future Persecution Risksubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner failed to meet the higher standard of showing a significant individualized risk of future persecution.
Reasoning: He failed to show a significant individualized risk of future persecution, which requires a higher standard of evidence.
Withholding of Removal Based on Ethnicitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the denial of withholding of removal as the petitioner did not demonstrate past persecution based on ethnicity, despite being part of a disfavored group.
Reasoning: The agency found substantial evidence that Hendra did not demonstrate past persecution based on his Chinese ethnicity, despite being part of a disfavored group and presenting credible religious claims.