Michael Kaunang v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 594 F. App'x 371 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL MELVIN DWIGHT No. 13-70314
KAUNANG,
Agency No. A096-347-844
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Michael Melvin Dwight Kaunang, native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Kaunang established changed
circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application, see 8 C.F.R. §
1208.4(a)(5), nor does it compel the conclusion that he filed his asylum application
within a reasonable period of time after the expiration of his status, see Husyev v.
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008) (364 day delay in filing asylum application
after non-immigrant status expired was not a reasonable period). We reject
Kaunang’s contention that the one-year filing deadline commences from the date his
non-immigrant status lapsed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2)(ii) (one-year period
“shall be calculated from the date of the alien’s last arrival in the United States”).
Thus, we deny the petition as to Kaunang’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Kaunang’s
experiences in Indonesia do not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558
F.3d at 1059-1060 (mistreatment, including two beatings, did not compel finding of
past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that,
even under a disfavored group analysis, Kaunang failed to submit sufficient
evidence of individualized risk to show it is more likely than not that he will be
persecuted. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
2 13-70314
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to
adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail
than would an asylum applicant”). Further, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Kaunang failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution
of Christians in Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-1062. Thus,
Kaunang’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Kaunang’s CAT
claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if
returned to Indonesia. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
Thus, we deny the petition as to Kaunang’s CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70314