Setiono

Setiono v. Keisler

Good Law
249 F. App'x 614
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 1, 2007No. 04-72911California364 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Ahwi Setiono and his wife, Maria Mulia-waty, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 .

When, as here, the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision *615 directly. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence, see Rostomi-an v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000), and we deny the petition in part, grant the petition in part and remand.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate past persecution on account of a protected ground. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir.1998); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence further supports the IJ’s finding that petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, because they failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. Cf. Sael v.…

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.