MOTAN SILABAN V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-74116 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTAN SILABAN, No. 08-74116 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-630-166 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Motan Silaban, 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 application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez- * 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). Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003), and we grant the petition for review, and we remand. The agency found that, even if Silaban suffered persecution in the past, there has been a fundamental change in circumstances in Indonesia such that he no longer has a clear probability of persecution. Substantial evidence does not support the agency s finding. See Mutuku v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency must provide an individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioner s situation and country reports did not support changed circumstances finding). In addition, in assessing Silaban s fear of future persecution, the agency did not have the benefit of our decisions in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1064 65 (9th Cir. 2009) and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand for the BIA to assess Silaban s withholding of removal claim under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067; see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 18 (2002) (per curiam). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 08-74116

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.