NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
RENFIL SYAMSIR, No. 11-72722
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-630-235
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Renfil Syamsir, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Lim v.
INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2000), and we review de novo due process claims,
Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Syamsir, who was
never arrested, physically harmed, or directly threatened, failed to establish past
persecution. See Lim, 224 F.3d at 936; Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182
(9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner failed to present evidence that compelled a finding of
past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Syamsir
failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted if returned to
Indonesia. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, Syamsir’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Syamsir failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured in
Indonesia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we reject Syamsir’s due process claim because he failed to establish
prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-72722