Tamengkel

Tamengkel v. Mukasey

Good Law
300 F. App'x 566
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 20, 2008No. 06-70055California269 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rio Raymond Tamengkel, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his applica *567 tion for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ denied Tamengkel’s asylum application as time barred. Tamengkel does not challenge this finding in his opening brief.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal because Tamengkel did not experience any problems in the past, and even if the disfavored group analysis set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir.2004) applies to Christian Indonesians seeking withholding of removal, Tamengkel failed to demonstrate that it was more likely than not that he will be persecuted if he returns to Indonesia. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, Tamengkel has not shown a clear probability of persecution due to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.