FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN RINALDO JULIUS, No. 07-72192
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-305-088
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
**
Submitted June 29, 2010
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Rinaldo Julius, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief 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 the BIA’s
findings. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). We deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary
circumstances excused the untimely filing of Julius’s asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4)–(5).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Julius’s withholding of
removal claim because his father’s beatings, and the threat and harms he received
during an anti-government demonstration did not rise to the level of past
persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (persecution was not
established where petitioner suffered one violent incident and received unrelated
and unfulfilled threats of violence). Likewise, Julius failed to establish a clear
probability of future persecution. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1101
(9th Cir. 2000) (similarly situated, unharmed family members undermine future
fear of persecution); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.
2005) (future fear of persecution speculative if petitioner fails to show that the
government is unable or unwilling to protect).
2 07-72192
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Julius submitted insufficient evidence that it is more likely than not he will
be tortured if he returns to Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-72192