Butarbutar, et al v. Holder, No. 08-70128 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 21 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR ANTHON BUTARBUTAR, Petitioner, No. 08-70128 Agency No. A095-630-157 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Victor Anthon Butarbutar, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. See Wakkary v Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s finding that Butarbutar failed to show the government was unable or unwilling to control the Muslim extremists he fears because he did not report any of the incidents at issue, nor did he establish that reporting the incidents would have been futile or subjected him to further abuse. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005); Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006) (reporting persecution to authorities not required if applicant can convincingly establish that doing so would have been futile or have subjected him to further abuse ). Further, as Butarbutar has not established past persecution, he is not entitled to a presumption of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). Accordingly, because he does not otherwise contend he has shown a clear probability of persecution, his withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of CAT relief because one government department s denial of building permits to construct a church for a congregation does not show government acquiescence to torture. See 2 08-70128 Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 08-70128
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.
