Latuharhary

Latuharhary v. Mukasey

Good Law
269 F. App'x 678
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 10, 2008No. 04-75711California299 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Johannes Parikesit Latuharhary, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Latuharhary’s untimely filing of his asylum application should be excused. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4 (a)(5). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Latuharhary’s asylum claim.

With regard to the claim for withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Latuharhary has not demonstrated a clear probability of future persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179-81 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of a pattern and practice of persecution); Maroufi v. INS, 772 F.2d 597, 599-600 (9th Cir.1985) (petitioner failed to demonstrate that he would be singled out for future…

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.