NAFI TAMAMI V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-72881 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NAFI TAMAMI, No. 09-72881 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-263-597 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 6, 2012 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Nafi Tamami, 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 and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings, and we review de novo the agency s legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of withholding of removal because Tamami s experiences in Indonesia do not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1059-60 (concluding petitioner experienced discriminatory mistreatment). In addition, the record does not compel that Tamami will be individually targeted for persecution, see Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007), and he failed to establish there is a pattern or practice of persecution against moderate Muslims in Indonesia, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of CAT relief because Tamami failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-72881

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.