JAHOTMAN SIHOTANG V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-70315 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 14 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAHOTMAN SIHOTANG, Petitioner, No. 10-70315 Agency No. A078-020-310 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 8, 2012 ** Before: ALARCÃ N, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Jahotman Sihotang, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA s denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. * 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). INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review de novo constitutional challenges to a statute, Munoz v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA denied Sihotang s motion as untimely. Sihotang does not contest this dispositive finding. Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sihotang s motion on the alternative grounds that, even as an Indonesian Christian, Sihotang failed to make a prima facie showing of any individualized risk to establish a clear probability of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider Sihotang s argument that he was persecuted on account of his Chinese ethnicity because he raises it for the first time before this court. We lack jurisdiction to review Sihotang s contentions related to asylum because his motion to reconsider only raised his withholding of removal claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Sihotang s due process claim related to asylum fails for the same reason. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 10-70315
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.
