Paago, et al v. Holder, No. 07-74543 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 30 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AGNES PAAGO; YOHANES SAMUEL, Petitioners, No. 07-74543 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

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.