APRILEXIUS MAKAHAUBE V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-71492 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 14 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APRILEXIUS LAHIBORE MAKAHAUBE, No. 10-71492 Agency No. A095-630-002 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Aprilexius Lahibore Makahaube, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for * 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). an abuse of discretion the BIA s denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review. Makahaube contends the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion because he established eligibility for withholding of removal under a disfavored group analysis. We reject Makahaube s argument in light of our prior decision, Makahaube v. Holder, No. 06-70340, 2009 WL 794670 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2009), in which this court applied the disfavored group analysis to Makahaube s withholding of removal claim and rejected his claim. Makahaube also contends the BIA should have granted his motion to reconsider in light of Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007), in which the Second Circuit remanded for the BIA to consider in the first instance the petitioner s argument that Indonesian Christians faced a pattern or practice of persecution. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding this out-of-circuit decision did not have any bearing on Makahaube s case. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-71492

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.