Paago v. Holder ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AGNES PAAGO; YOHANES SAMUEL, No. 07-74543
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A096-356-429
A096-356-430
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Agnes Paago and Yohanes Samuel, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review for substantial evidence, Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 657 (9th Cir.
2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed circumstances
excused the untimely filing of petitioners’ asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s finding that they did not establish
past persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued are deemed waived). Even as
members of a disfavored group, the record does not compel the conclusion that
petitioners established sufficient individualized risk to show a clear probability of
persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“An
applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger
quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail”). Thus, petitioners’
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners
are not eligible for CAT relief because they failed to show it is more likely than not
they would be tortured if removed to Indonesia. See id. at 1067-68.
2 07-74543
Petitioner’s contention that the IJ did not address whether they could
relocate is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-74543