Martorebo, et al v. Holder, No. 07-75108 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 25 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NGADIMIN MARTOREBO, Petitioner, No. 07-75108 Agency No. A095-618-243 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Ngadimin Martorebo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and denying his motion to remand. 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 factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s denial of withholding of removal because Martorebo failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he or his children will be persecuted because his children are citizens of the United States. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (fear of future harm is too speculative). The agency was within its discretion in denying Martorebo s motion to remand because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant remand. See Romero-Ruiz, 538 F.3d at 1062 ( The BIA abuses its discretion if its decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. ) (internal citation and quotations omitted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-75108

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.