AGUS LU V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 14-70711 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 17 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AGUS INDA LU, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-70711 Agency No. A088-121-759 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 15, 2019** Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Agus Inda Lu, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Lu established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Lu’s asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Lu suffered in Indonesia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1059-60 (petitioner failed to establish past persecution where he was beaten and robbed on two occasions and accosted by a mob); see also Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner who was harassed, denied medical care, arrested and detained, and beaten by a mob did not establish past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that even under a disfavored group analysis, Lu failed to show sufficient individualized risk of persecution to establish a well-founded fear. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 97779. Thus, Lu’s withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lu failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with 2 14-70711 the consent or acquiescence of the government of Indonesia. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-70711
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.
