Siemson, et al v. Holder, No. 06-73113 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AIMELLIA KRISTENSON SIEMSON; JOHANUS KRISTANTO, a.k.a. Johannes Alexander Siemson, No. 06-73113 Agency Nos. A079-611-942 A079-611-975 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2010 ** Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Aimellia Kristenson Siemson and Johanus Kristanto, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying their * 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). applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo due process claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of Johanus Kristanto s asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails. Petitioners do not contend they suffered past persecution in Indonesia. Substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that petitioners do not have a well-founded fear of future persecution, because, even as a members of a disfavored group, they failed to demonstrate the requisite individualized risk of persecution. Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 927-29 (9th Cir. 2004); see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) ( An applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail ). Accordingly, Aimellia Siemson s asylum claim fails, and petitioners withholding of removal claims fail. 2 06-73113 Finally, we agree with the BIA s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish former counsel s performance resulted in prejudice, and thus their claim of ineffective assistance of counsel also fails. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94 (to demonstrate prejudice, alien must establish that counsel s performance may have affected outcome of the proceedings). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 06-73113
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
